4 ms·

I know it's not the main point of the article, but far too many articles these days seem to dwell on the number of jobs that can be supported by any given start

I know it's not the main point of the article, but far too many articles these days seem to dwell on the number of jobs that can be supported by any given startup. The most amazing thing, to me, about technology is how it enables such small groups of people to positively affect millions. Lamenting that this is possible without hiring thousands of people seems like a such a narrow and scared mindset to me. It completely ignores huge swaths of possibility and potential.

notatoad 14y ago
the number of jobs that can be supported is really just an easily understandable analogue for growth potential. any business, no matter how efficiently they use technology, will end up supporting a large number of jobs if they grow sufficiently large.
- jdonaldson 14y ago
  There's also stories like craigslist and reddit. It's an uncomfortable reality that the future of many industries are going to need far fewer people on the payroll.
  - notatoad 14y ago
    i'm not familiar with craigslist's staffing, but reddit is a great example of why a website with 500k users can't survive on a staff of 4 people. It is amazing what they did with a small team, but it was very clear that they needed a larger team, both on the technical/engineering side of things and on the advertising/sales side of things. The amount of money they were making was shameful for a site with their traffic, and the site performance was (and continues to be) equally shameful.
    - Evbn 14y ago
      They have like 11 happily employee people, and millions of happy users on that "shameful" site.
- richcollins 14y ago
  Actually, I think that many people value businesses based on how many jobs they create, not how much wealth they create. This is where you get misguided attempts to "create jobs" by the government by doing things analogous to employing people to dig holes and fill them in again.
  - aaronblohowiak 14y ago
    Galbraith has an excellent explanation of why paying poor jobless to do anything is a good idea if unemployment is or threatens to run rampant -- basically, it is an inflation-proof way to keep money flowing into the economy by stimulating spending, because poor people don't hold on to their money, they spend it in their communities.. which helps to create jobs and keep demand up
    - richcollins 14y ago
      If that's true then why not just give them the money? At least that way they could spend their time learning to do something productive.
      - Evbn 14y ago
        You mean like welfare? We have that. Or TVA, CCC, and "shovel ready construction projects"? The rock thing was not a proposal, it was just an academic example to show that the value of stimulus is not only found in the government buying something from recipients, it is also found in the recipient's private spending.

notatoad 14y ago

the number of jobs that can be supported is really just an easily understandable analogue for growth potential. any business, no matter how efficiently they use technology, will end up supporting a large number of jobs if they grow sufficiently large.

jdonaldson 14y ago
There's also stories like craigslist and reddit. It's an uncomfortable reality that the future of many industries are going to need far fewer people on the payroll.
- notatoad 14y ago
  i'm not familiar with craigslist's staffing, but reddit is a great example of why a website with 500k users can't survive on a staff of 4 people. It is amazing what they did with a small team, but it was very clear that they needed a larger team, both on the technical/engineering side of things and on the advertising/sales side of things. The amount of money they were making was shameful for a site with their traffic, and the site performance was (and continues to be) equally shameful.
  - Evbn 14y ago
    They have like 11 happily employee people, and millions of happy users on that "shameful" site.
richcollins 14y ago
Actually, I think that many people value businesses based on how many jobs they create, not how much wealth they create. This is where you get misguided attempts to "create jobs" by the government by doing things analogous to employing people to dig holes and fill them in again.
- aaronblohowiak 14y ago
  Galbraith has an excellent explanation of why paying poor jobless to do anything is a good idea if unemployment is or threatens to run rampant -- basically, it is an inflation-proof way to keep money flowing into the economy by stimulating spending, because poor people don't hold on to their money, they spend it in their communities.. which helps to create jobs and keep demand up
  - richcollins 14y ago
    If that's true then why not just give them the money? At least that way they could spend their time learning to do something productive.
    - Evbn 14y ago
      You mean like welfare? We have that. Or TVA, CCC, and "shovel ready construction projects"? The rock thing was not a proposal, it was just an academic example to show that the value of stimulus is not only found in the government buying something from recipients, it is also found in the recipient's private spending.