7 ms·

>Today, we live in a rentier's paradise. People don't aspire to create value – they aspire to capture it... don't provide a service, just figure out a way to in

by carom 3y ago

>Today, we live in a rentier's paradise. People don't aspire to create value – they aspire to capture it... don't provide a service, just figure out a way to interpose yourself between the provider and the customer I think the customer has just changed. Consumers don't have money anymore. Businesses do. Maybe said a different way, for the highest margin products you are targeting businesses. A consumer spending 100k is a often a lifetime purchase. A business spending that may just be so they can improve efficiency by 5% or hang onto onto their budget next year. Your competition are large companies taking small amounts of value from a huge number of customers. Consumers have gotten used to "not paying" (e.g. paying through ad views) and, for that reason, a more traditional exchange has become difficult. This problem seems to be that consumer companies are moving toward an extraction at scale model. It is less market choice but often produces a free or subsidized product.

LapsangGuzzler 3y ago
> It is less market choice but often produces a free or subsidized product. A lot of companies are going down the “captive customer” path wherever they can. Rental properties are a good example of this. Nowadays, there are a handful of compulsory services that you, the renter, must pay for on top the rent and there are no options to cancel (the federal government is currently targeting this practice). I worked for a startup in the media space that did the exact same thing. As soon as we figured out that we could pitch our product to media properties while onboarding their advertisers and forcing them to become our paying users instead of the media companies themselves, we found product-market fit and took off.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
  > Nowadays, there are a handful of compulsory services that you, the renter, must pay for on top the rent and there are no options to cancel (the federal government is currently targeting this practice). Off the top of my head: - cable TV I don't use - a trash retrieval service my friends don't use (the service is to take it from the apartment door to the dumpster) - parking space someone without a car doesn't use Good to know I might be able to tell my landlord someday that I don't care about the deal they got with Comcast, I'm not paying for the stupid cable.
  - sidewndr46 3y ago
    The trash service is the one thing that as homeowner (and former renter) just baffles me. I totally understand the need and value if you are disabled or if you otherwise cannot. But seriously, every apartment I rented the trash dumpster was right there. Just grab the bag on my way out, toss it in
    - birdyrooster 3y ago
      They would do it in Texas at some of the shittiest apartment complexes and I never understood how they could afford to offer such a waste of a service.
      - avidiax 3y ago
        They don't have to afford anything. The garbage collection service cut a deal with the landlord to pay them $X/mo./unit, and helpfully suggested adding it to the lease so they have a 100% subscription rate. The landlord is the customer, not you.
  - no_wizard 3y ago
    I really dislike the trash service we have. Its the same deal. They aren't taking it off site, just the onsite trash bin that we would have to take it to anyways, and its ~35 a month for the privilege. Can't opt out at all. They also have onerous rules: - Can't have more than one trash bag per night - Trash and recycling must be taken on different nights (I think largely as a result of the above) - they don't service Friday or Saturday, the two biggest days for trash during the week. This means trash is often sitting outside for 24-48 hours because the complex doesn't have any rules around how long your trash can be set out for. - Trash can't be too heavy or bulky. These things are not quantified, so sometimes the trash just isn't taken and you have no idea why - You must use 13 gallon trash bags or larger. They won't pickup smaller ones (no idea why this exists) - You must use their exceedingly small bin or they won't pick it up. The bin has no lid. If the trash doesn't slide out of the bin naturally, they will refuse to pick it up (IE, they won't tip it to empty it. If it pulls at all they just leave it) On top of all that, they constantly leave fliers on our doors trying to sell trash bag subscription service through the company. I looked it up out of curiosity and they want $17 a month for the privilege
- shostack 3y ago
  What product is this exactly?
danaris 3y ago
> I think the customer has just changed. Consumers don't have money anymore. Businesses do. ...You...recognize that's not a sustainable state of affairs, right? Ultimately, if consumers don't have money, the economy will start to collapse. The upper echelons can feed on each other for a while, but you need an economic base to support the whole edifice. Plus, if "consumers" are unable to get what they need for survival and thriving for long enough, they're going to decide (correctly) that someone has taken it from them, and take steps to get it back by whatever means necessary.
- fnimick 3y ago
  Which is why I expect a basic income to come before it gets to that point. Not enough for anyone to ever save or invest in themselves, just enough money handed out from the government to be sucked right back up into the rent-seeking money machine. > Plus, if "consumers" are unable to get what they need for survival and thriving for long enough, they're going to decide (correctly) that someone has taken it from them, and take steps to get it back by whatever means necessary. They'd better do it fast before rich people figure out that robot dogs with lethal weapons and AI vision are a great replacement for human guards that might have the downside of having any empathy. As soon as defense of property rights is fully automated, revolution is impossible.
  - r2_pilot 3y ago
    >As soon as defense of property rights is fully automated, revolution is impossible. All entities run out of deployable assets eventually.
    - nebula8804 3y ago
      Not if they find a way to escape to space/mars.
- api 3y ago
  It was sustainable as long as interest rates were near or at zero. Businesses could raise money seemingly forever, and could grow on the backs of other businesses raising easy money. A lot of this could be a zero interest rate phenomenon.
rhyme-boss 3y ago
The more power shifts to businesses the worse society gets. "Profit motive" is extractive and full of negative externalities. If lone businesses wield more power than the entire government (or capture government) then, as individuals, we're really back to taxation without representation.
- e_i_pi_2 3y ago
  I love this idea of taking "taxation without representation" and using it at a lens for companies which are often as powerful as governments in some ways. I'm not sure what a good solution would be, but something like the BBB with more power seems like it's be useful so people can report companies and have them fined proportionally to their income so it's an effective deterrent.
  - coldpie 3y ago
    > I'm not sure what a good solution would be Anti-trust enforcement. Each and every big-name company you can name needs to be broken up into at least 30 different business entities. The current FTC is taking the first steps in the right direction, but it's going to take a lot of time & effort to build that department back up after 30+ years of them being inactive.
    - rhyme-boss 3y ago
      - anti trust legislation - reversal of Citizens United - higher taxes on extremely rich businesses and individuals All these things would help, but they are also government actions, which have been captured by business interests.
      - red-iron-pine 3y ago
        so then un-capture it from business interests. there is a lot of history as to how this was done before.
ClumsyPilot 3y ago
> I think the customer has just changed. Consumers don't have money anymore. Businesses do. The more inequality grows, the poorer average man becomes, the more this becomes true. The more everything is enshittified, the harder it becomes to hold on to your money. It's a vicious circle.
em500 3y ago
> I think the customer has just changed. Consumers don't have money anymore. Businesses do. Maybe said a different way, for the highest margin products you are targeting businesses. That's seems like a fact-free assertion. Both (inflation adjusted) disposable income and actual consumption spending for US households have grown at a steady rate since WWII. The only substantial deviation from trend (upwards for income, downward for consumption) were 2 yeas of COVID. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DSPIC96 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DSPIC96 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PCEC96 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PCEC96
- uoaei 3y ago
  Cumulative measures such as these are extremely misleading. Per capita measures only slightly less so. Without looking into the distribution over the population there is no real connection between your comment and the parent's.
  - edgyquant 3y ago
    You or the parent are more than welcome to post data proving the opposite is true. Instead both of you are just stating things with nothing but vibes to back it up.
    - uoaei 3y ago
      You'll note of course that I'm not arguing the opposite conclusion. Don't try to force that on me. I'm just saying it seems really uncritical to assume that cumulative data says anything about median purchasing power.
    - rhelz 3y ago
      Up until about 1973, when worker productivity rose, the wages rose in lockstep. Since then, worker productivity is up about 2.4x but wages have remained stagnant. https://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/ https://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/
      - 3y ago
e_i_pi_2 3y ago
Yeah the title seems backwards - this is capitalism corrupting computers, not the other way around
- code_duck 3y ago
  His claim is that capitalism is being replaced with a form of feudalism.
api 3y ago
I think a more significant factor is growth rate. Free stuff can grow orders of magnitude faster than anything consumers buy for the simpler reason that signups or downloads can be zero friction. Even a little friction slows down growth. The game online for a very long time has been: grow as fast as possible, then figure out a way to monetize. Free wins in this game, making it almost impossible for anything paid for by the consumer to compete. So thus we have today's world where the game is: grow fast with free, then enshittify once your network effect has locked everyone in. It works incredibly well.

by carom 3y ago

LapsangGuzzler 3y ago

> It is less market choice but often produces a free or subsidized product. A lot of companies are going down the “captive customer” path wherever they can. Rental properties are a good example of this. Nowadays, there are a handful of compulsory services that you, the renter, must pay for on top the rent and there are no options to cancel (the federal government is currently targeting this practice). I worked for a startup in the media space that did the exact same thing. As soon as we figured out that we could pitch our product to media properties while onboarding their advertisers and forcing them to become our paying users instead of the media companies themselves, we found product-market fit and took off.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
> Nowadays, there are a handful of compulsory services that you, the renter, must pay for on top the rent and there are no options to cancel (the federal government is currently targeting this practice). Off the top of my head: - cable TV I don't use - a trash retrieval service my friends don't use (the service is to take it from the apartment door to the dumpster) - parking space someone without a car doesn't use Good to know I might be able to tell my landlord someday that I don't care about the deal they got with Comcast, I'm not paying for the stupid cable.
- sidewndr46 3y ago
  The trash service is the one thing that as homeowner (and former renter) just baffles me. I totally understand the need and value if you are disabled or if you otherwise cannot. But seriously, every apartment I rented the trash dumpster was right there. Just grab the bag on my way out, toss it in
  - birdyrooster 3y ago
    They would do it in Texas at some of the shittiest apartment complexes and I never understood how they could afford to offer such a waste of a service.
    - avidiax 3y ago
      They don't have to afford anything. The garbage collection service cut a deal with the landlord to pay them $X/mo./unit, and helpfully suggested adding it to the lease so they have a 100% subscription rate. The landlord is the customer, not you.
- no_wizard 3y ago
  I really dislike the trash service we have. Its the same deal. They aren't taking it off site, just the onsite trash bin that we would have to take it to anyways, and its ~35 a month for the privilege. Can't opt out at all. They also have onerous rules: - Can't have more than one trash bag per night - Trash and recycling must be taken on different nights (I think largely as a result of the above) - they don't service Friday or Saturday, the two biggest days for trash during the week. This means trash is often sitting outside for 24-48 hours because the complex doesn't have any rules around how long your trash can be set out for. - Trash can't be too heavy or bulky. These things are not quantified, so sometimes the trash just isn't taken and you have no idea why - You must use 13 gallon trash bags or larger. They won't pickup smaller ones (no idea why this exists) - You must use their exceedingly small bin or they won't pick it up. The bin has no lid. If the trash doesn't slide out of the bin naturally, they will refuse to pick it up (IE, they won't tip it to empty it. If it pulls at all they just leave it) On top of all that, they constantly leave fliers on our doors trying to sell trash bag subscription service through the company. I looked it up out of curiosity and they want $17 a month for the privilege
shostack 3y ago
What product is this exactly?

danaris 3y ago

> I think the customer has just changed. Consumers don't have money anymore. Businesses do. ...You...recognize that's not a sustainable state of affairs, right? Ultimately, if consumers don't have money, the economy will start to collapse. The upper echelons can feed on each other for a while, but you need an economic base to support the whole edifice. Plus, if "consumers" are unable to get what they need for survival and thriving for long enough, they're going to decide (correctly) that someone has taken it from them, and take steps to get it back by whatever means necessary.

fnimick 3y ago
Which is why I expect a basic income to come before it gets to that point. Not enough for anyone to ever save or invest in themselves, just enough money handed out from the government to be sucked right back up into the rent-seeking money machine. > Plus, if "consumers" are unable to get what they need for survival and thriving for long enough, they're going to decide (correctly) that someone has taken it from them, and take steps to get it back by whatever means necessary. They'd better do it fast before rich people figure out that robot dogs with lethal weapons and AI vision are a great replacement for human guards that might have the downside of having any empathy. As soon as defense of property rights is fully automated, revolution is impossible.
- r2_pilot 3y ago
  >As soon as defense of property rights is fully automated, revolution is impossible. All entities run out of deployable assets eventually.
  - nebula8804 3y ago
    Not if they find a way to escape to space/mars.
api 3y ago
It was sustainable as long as interest rates were near or at zero. Businesses could raise money seemingly forever, and could grow on the backs of other businesses raising easy money. A lot of this could be a zero interest rate phenomenon.

rhyme-boss 3y ago

The more power shifts to businesses the worse society gets. "Profit motive" is extractive and full of negative externalities. If lone businesses wield more power than the entire government (or capture government) then, as individuals, we're really back to taxation without representation.

e_i_pi_2 3y ago
I love this idea of taking "taxation without representation" and using it at a lens for companies which are often as powerful as governments in some ways. I'm not sure what a good solution would be, but something like the BBB with more power seems like it's be useful so people can report companies and have them fined proportionally to their income so it's an effective deterrent.
- coldpie 3y ago
  > I'm not sure what a good solution would be Anti-trust enforcement. Each and every big-name company you can name needs to be broken up into at least 30 different business entities. The current FTC is taking the first steps in the right direction, but it's going to take a lot of time & effort to build that department back up after 30+ years of them being inactive.
  - rhyme-boss 3y ago
    - anti trust legislation - reversal of Citizens United - higher taxes on extremely rich businesses and individuals All these things would help, but they are also government actions, which have been captured by business interests.
    - red-iron-pine 3y ago
      so then un-capture it from business interests. there is a lot of history as to how this was done before.

ClumsyPilot 3y ago

> I think the customer has just changed. Consumers don't have money anymore. Businesses do. The more inequality grows, the poorer average man becomes, the more this becomes true. The more everything is enshittified, the harder it becomes to hold on to your money. It's a vicious circle.

em500 3y ago

> I think the customer has just changed. Consumers don't have money anymore. Businesses do. Maybe said a different way, for the highest margin products you are targeting businesses. That's seems like a fact-free assertion. Both (inflation adjusted) disposable income and actual consumption spending for US households have grown at a steady rate since WWII. The only substantial deviation from trend (upwards for income, downward for consumption) were 2 yeas of COVID. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DSPIC96 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DSPIC96 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PCEC96 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PCEC96

uoaei 3y ago
Cumulative measures such as these are extremely misleading. Per capita measures only slightly less so. Without looking into the distribution over the population there is no real connection between your comment and the parent's.
- edgyquant 3y ago
  You or the parent are more than welcome to post data proving the opposite is true. Instead both of you are just stating things with nothing but vibes to back it up.
  - uoaei 3y ago
    You'll note of course that I'm not arguing the opposite conclusion. Don't try to force that on me. I'm just saying it seems really uncritical to assume that cumulative data says anything about median purchasing power.
  - rhelz 3y ago
    Up until about 1973, when worker productivity rose, the wages rose in lockstep. Since then, worker productivity is up about 2.4x but wages have remained stagnant. https://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/ https://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/
    - 3y ago

e_i_pi_2 3y ago

Yeah the title seems backwards - this is capitalism corrupting computers, not the other way around

code_duck 3y ago
His claim is that capitalism is being replaced with a form of feudalism.

api 3y ago

I think a more significant factor is growth rate. Free stuff can grow orders of magnitude faster than anything consumers buy for the simpler reason that signups or downloads can be zero friction. Even a little friction slows down growth. The game online for a very long time has been: grow as fast as possible, then figure out a way to monetize. Free wins in this game, making it almost impossible for anything paid for by the consumer to compete. So thus we have today's world where the game is: grow fast with free, then enshittify once your network effect has locked everyone in. It works incredibly well.