4 ms·

This isn't really a surprise. We've created a society that depends on growth. CEOs sign up for a job where they're responsible for growing a company, so they'r

This isn't really a surprise. We've created a society that depends on growth. CEOs sign up for a job where they're responsible for growing a company, so they're obviously the type to value growth and want more for themsleves too – there's not a lot of CEOs who do it out of the goodness of their hearts. The investors, from the board down to individual nameless shareholders, all demand more money every quarter... even the employees want growth so their equity is worth more and they can get a raise. I don't think most people are Gordon Gekko types... it's mostly normal people who depend on a 401k or a pension or their house to appreciate in value. Even just cost-of-living salary adjustments is a form of growth. That money has to come from somewhere. There's no limit to the growth; there's no Good Enough. Nobody at Apple or Amazon has ever said "Hey, we did it, we won capitalism! Congrats!". There's always more to grow. There's literally no incentives for anyone, from employee to investor to CEO, to do anything but maximize growth. We don't celebrate companies that don't do layoffs, and the ones who do take a quick hit followed by a WSJ article the following quarter talking about how they hit their revenue goals. It's a depressing treadmill that keeps speeding up. But my point is... this is a symptom of a much bigger mindset we have, mainly in America. We all read this and are upset, but we are propping it up indirectly... via stock portfolios, 401ks, pensions, salary, equity, etc. Growth is good! But unbridled, never-ending growth is exhausting.

Brybry 3y ago
I don't think this is true for all of us, possibly not even for most people in the US. I know plenty of people who took lower paying jobs because they valued other things more than "growth": quality of life, family, passion, etc. I know people who have enough to meet their needs and are not actively working towards having more. People who retire by "aging in place" who do not care about the value of their home because they have no intention of selling it while they're alive.
- Calavar 3y ago
  I think this is somewhat naive. The growth mindset pervades the entire economy, and virtually everyone's interests are bound into it one way or another. Yes, of course there are people who prioritize lifestyle over chasing money. No one will debate that. But if those people's retirement plans are dependent on a 401k or drawing payments from a pension fund and not just cash savings, then they are amongst the growth-obsessed shareholders, whether they realize it or not.
  - gkoberger 3y ago
    Yup, this was the point I was trying to make, and you made it much better. I think 99.9% of people have good intentions. But so much of everything we do depends on growth without us even realizing it.
  - MrMan 3y ago
    [dead]
  - t_serpico 3y ago
    To add on to this, unbridled capitalism also leads to more goods and services affordable for the average consumer. This makes the idea of taking a lower paying job appealing because you can still live a fairly comfortable life.
    - paulryanrogers 3y ago
      Is it unbridled that accomplishes that? Before regulations and unions people worked more hours per week, even children, and were exploited to a criminal degree. Mostly the profits went to capital owners. Collective assets like the environment suffered. Progress was certainly made and highly visible, yet at great cost.
      - somsak2 3y ago
        > Mostly the profits went to capital owners probably not the best example, today this is much worse vs. during the early days of the Industrial Revolution
    - blackbear_ 3y ago
      > more goods and services affordable for the average consumer The one key missing ingredient for this is competition. Without competition there is just a monopoly/cartel, leading to rent seeking behavior and products/services with too low quality and too high prices.
  - Brybry 3y ago
    > The growth mindset pervades the entire economy, and virtually everyone's interests are bound into it one way or another. I agree with this but I think gkoberger's post was maybe edited? I believe the post I originally responded to was worded in a way that implied everyone individually was purposefully embracing a growth mindset (or I misunderstood). There's certainly no way to escape that all retirement systems in the US are based on growth. Even social security seems to rely on making more from interest than from taxes.
- ericd 3y ago
  I think one of the challenges is that if a society gets richer around you, and you don’t, then normal services get more expensive as people demand higher salaries to do the same things, and houses get more expensive.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
The treadmill is entirely opt-in. Why do you participate? Your profile says that you are a founder.
- gkoberger 3y ago
  Because you can both participate in society and be critical of it at the same time. I am a founder, but we've worked hard to focus on profitability and staying healthy. I started a company because I wanted a place where people could feel safe, do good work, and as much as possible not worry about the things I detailed. (I also don't think it's opt-in. If everyone around you makes more money and you don't, you have decreasing buying power. You need to grow just to stay neutral.)
hgs3 3y ago
"Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell." ~ Edward Abbey What irks me is lots of products are "done" but continue to receive pointless changes - whether that be UX changes, half-backed features, or regressions in functionality. And for what? So the marketing department has something to market, so engineers can justify their continued employment? This problem isn't limited to the business world either. Even in the open source community there is a tendency to assume that if a project isn't receiving regular code changes, then it must be "dead" or "unsupported" when in actuality it _might_ be a sign the project is mature and stable.
- paulryanrogers 3y ago
  In the case of FOSS the reputation for old being worse has something to do with ever evolving platforms. You can still use unchanged GNU utilities and apps from the mid 90's. But you'd have to run it with layers of emulation or shims. And it couldn't handle newer formats or protocols.
steve76 3y ago
[dead]

Brybry 3y ago

I don't think this is true for all of us, possibly not even for most people in the US. I know plenty of people who took lower paying jobs because they valued other things more than "growth": quality of life, family, passion, etc. I know people who have enough to meet their needs and are not actively working towards having more. People who retire by "aging in place" who do not care about the value of their home because they have no intention of selling it while they're alive.

Calavar 3y ago
I think this is somewhat naive. The growth mindset pervades the entire economy, and virtually everyone's interests are bound into it one way or another. Yes, of course there are people who prioritize lifestyle over chasing money. No one will debate that. But if those people's retirement plans are dependent on a 401k or drawing payments from a pension fund and not just cash savings, then they are amongst the growth-obsessed shareholders, whether they realize it or not.
- gkoberger 3y ago
  Yup, this was the point I was trying to make, and you made it much better. I think 99.9% of people have good intentions. But so much of everything we do depends on growth without us even realizing it.
- MrMan 3y ago
  [dead]
- t_serpico 3y ago
  To add on to this, unbridled capitalism also leads to more goods and services affordable for the average consumer. This makes the idea of taking a lower paying job appealing because you can still live a fairly comfortable life.
  - paulryanrogers 3y ago
    Is it unbridled that accomplishes that? Before regulations and unions people worked more hours per week, even children, and were exploited to a criminal degree. Mostly the profits went to capital owners. Collective assets like the environment suffered. Progress was certainly made and highly visible, yet at great cost.
    - somsak2 3y ago
      > Mostly the profits went to capital owners probably not the best example, today this is much worse vs. during the early days of the Industrial Revolution
  - blackbear_ 3y ago
    > more goods and services affordable for the average consumer The one key missing ingredient for this is competition. Without competition there is just a monopoly/cartel, leading to rent seeking behavior and products/services with too low quality and too high prices.
- Brybry 3y ago
  > The growth mindset pervades the entire economy, and virtually everyone's interests are bound into it one way or another. I agree with this but I think gkoberger's post was maybe edited? I believe the post I originally responded to was worded in a way that implied everyone individually was purposefully embracing a growth mindset (or I misunderstood). There's certainly no way to escape that all retirement systems in the US are based on growth. Even social security seems to rely on making more from interest than from taxes.
ericd 3y ago
I think one of the challenges is that if a society gets richer around you, and you don’t, then normal services get more expensive as people demand higher salaries to do the same things, and houses get more expensive.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago

The treadmill is entirely opt-in. Why do you participate? Your profile says that you are a founder.

gkoberger 3y ago
Because you can both participate in society and be critical of it at the same time. I am a founder, but we've worked hard to focus on profitability and staying healthy. I started a company because I wanted a place where people could feel safe, do good work, and as much as possible not worry about the things I detailed. (I also don't think it's opt-in. If everyone around you makes more money and you don't, you have decreasing buying power. You need to grow just to stay neutral.)

hgs3 3y ago

"Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell." ~ Edward Abbey What irks me is lots of products are "done" but continue to receive pointless changes - whether that be UX changes, half-backed features, or regressions in functionality. And for what? So the marketing department has something to market, so engineers can justify their continued employment? This problem isn't limited to the business world either. Even in the open source community there is a tendency to assume that if a project isn't receiving regular code changes, then it must be "dead" or "unsupported" when in actuality it _might_ be a sign the project is mature and stable.

paulryanrogers 3y ago
In the case of FOSS the reputation for old being worse has something to do with ever evolving platforms. You can still use unchanged GNU utilities and apps from the mid 90's. But you'd have to run it with layers of emulation or shims. And it couldn't handle newer formats or protocols.

steve76 3y ago

[dead]