3 ms·

I think these trends are largely irrelevant to the Thiel Fellows. After all, most of them come from elite universities and could easily find a high paying job a

I think these trends are largely irrelevant to the Thiel Fellows. After all, most of them come from elite universities and could easily find a high paying job after graduating. If Thiel wants to put his money where his mouth is, he needs to find a way to solve the problem of the bottom 50% not finding a job. And I don't think that spawning more startups will help - just look around the startups you know - how many of the people there would have been unemployed if they hadn't joined a startup?

nickpinkston 13y ago
Yea, that's the biggest question in society right now IMO. How can we take the people who are going to be made (or are) irrelevant and get them doing something productive that they enjoy.
seanflyon 13y ago
I don't think that that is the right way to look at it. Yes those people employed by startups would be able to find work elsewhere, but if they did would they take a job that would otherwise go to someone else? Also the startups that succeed employ more people. If we have a shortage of jobs, more jobs sounds like a good thing.
- w1ntermute 13y ago
  > if they did would they take a job that would otherwise go to someone else? No, I don't think they would. For example, the demand for developers is sky high right now, and yet we have very high unemployment rates. Not everyone is cut out to be a developer - jobs in the knowledge economy aren't so simply interchangeable. > Also the startups that succeed employ more people. If we have a shortage of jobs, more jobs sounds like a good thing. Yes, it's great when there are more jobs. But we're talking about a completely different order of magnitude. At their zeniths, each of the Big Three automakers employed hundreds of thousands of employees. How many does Facebook (a startup that has most definitely suceeded) employ? Not even 6000. Snapchat, supposedly worth billions, has less than 30 employees. Instagram was acquired when it had only 13. We have to realize and accept the fact that these startups just aren't. going to provide the sort of broad-based employment that's going to put the American people back to work.

nickpinkston 13y ago

Yea, that's the biggest question in society right now IMO. How can we take the people who are going to be made (or are) irrelevant and get them doing something productive that they enjoy.

seanflyon 13y ago

I don't think that that is the right way to look at it. Yes those people employed by startups would be able to find work elsewhere, but if they did would they take a job that would otherwise go to someone else? Also the startups that succeed employ more people. If we have a shortage of jobs, more jobs sounds like a good thing.

w1ntermute 13y ago
> if they did would they take a job that would otherwise go to someone else? No, I don't think they would. For example, the demand for developers is sky high right now, and yet we have very high unemployment rates. Not everyone is cut out to be a developer - jobs in the knowledge economy aren't so simply interchangeable. > Also the startups that succeed employ more people. If we have a shortage of jobs, more jobs sounds like a good thing. Yes, it's great when there are more jobs. But we're talking about a completely different order of magnitude. At their zeniths, each of the Big Three automakers employed hundreds of thousands of employees. How many does Facebook (a startup that has most definitely suceeded) employ? Not even 6000. Snapchat, supposedly worth billions, has less than 30 employees. Instagram was acquired when it had only 13. We have to realize and accept the fact that these startups just aren't. going to provide the sort of broad-based employment that's going to put the American people back to work.