4 ms·

Technology is not creating jobs: it is eating them

7 points by gsibble 12y ago

StandardFuture 12y ago
>Entrepreneurs need to remember that we are supposed to live on the cliff between science fiction and science fact. I really do not agree that entrepreneurs are the ones who are obligated to push humanity forward. Time and time again I have seen article after article, and person after person, conflate the ideas of innovation/invention and business/startups. Businesses just make money. That's it. You do whatever it takes to make money. I mean, Nokia sold rubber tires at one point. An invention can power a company that is built 'on top' of it (e.g. Edison getting invested in after he invented the lightbulb, Larry and Sergei creating Google after they completed their research in Search Algorithms), but just because some inventors were also entrepreneurs does not create an automatic equivalence between the two. A lot of innovation and invention came from government sponsored projects and those have benefited society just as much. Maybe it is time we started to approach growing world problems with a broader viewpoint than just "Solve it with a startup (or an app)"? Maybe it's time we used our intellectual forum to discuss real solutions to real problems.
- pfranz 12y ago
  I think the reason entrepreneurs and businesses are looked at this way is because they're a filter between good and bad ideas. "Ideas are easy, execution is hard." Yes, businesses just make money. If executing an idea isn't profitable, then it is a bad idea. Money shouldn't be the only metric, but it's the most fair one. Look at all of the discussion about measuring the effectiveness of education, teachers, and charities.
- gsibble 12y ago
  The most successful entrepreneurs are the ones who live in this territory. See Peter Thiel's book regarding monopolies vs. perfect competition. If you invent something new, you will have a monopoly on it.
btown 12y ago
It's a very interesting perspective to think of "creative destruction" [1] in terms of acceleration/virality coefficients. If the net multiplier coefficient on jobs per [technological advance/new business based on technology] is below 1, then the economic system is unstable, as it could trend towards long-term unemployment and revolution (if Marx is to be believed). Of course, due to regulation and human nature, it's a damped system - not all jobs will be eliminated. But if that coefficient is above 1, then the system will stabilize. The relevant question here is how, as technology entrepreneurs, we can both (a) create resilient, scalable businesses that individually have a coefficient above 1, and (b) create resilient, scalable systems that promote the creation of those businesses in (a). The difficulty is tying these coefficients to the bottom lines of each of these businesses. I'm co-founding a startup now that, without delving into specifics, aims to link the value of its core consumer brand with its ability to generate jobs and income. Time (and lots of effort) will tell whether we can (a) make this successful, and (b) whether it can lead our industry as a whole towards seeing the viability of this trend. But I'm confident that we have a fighting chance to do as much as any single business can to promote the sustainability of human society. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_destruction#Joseph_Schumpeter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_destruction#Joseph_Sc...

7 points by gsibble 12y ago

>Entrepreneurs need to remember that we are supposed to live on the cliff between science fiction and science fact. I really do not agree that entrepreneurs are the ones who are obligated to push humanity forward. Time and time again I have seen article after article, and person after person, conflate the ideas of innovation/invention and business/startups. Businesses just make money. That's it. You do whatever it takes to make money. I mean, Nokia sold rubber tires at one point. An invention can power a company that is built 'on top' of it (e.g. Edison getting invested in after he invented the lightbulb, Larry and Sergei creating Google after they completed their research in Search Algorithms), but just because some inventors were also entrepreneurs does not create an automatic equivalence between the two. A lot of innovation and invention came from government sponsored projects and those have benefited society just as much. Maybe it is time we started to approach growing world problems with a broader viewpoint than just "Solve it with a startup (or an app)"? Maybe it's time we used our intellectual forum to discuss real solutions to real problems.

pfranz 12y ago
I think the reason entrepreneurs and businesses are looked at this way is because they're a filter between good and bad ideas. "Ideas are easy, execution is hard." Yes, businesses just make money. If executing an idea isn't profitable, then it is a bad idea. Money shouldn't be the only metric, but it's the most fair one. Look at all of the discussion about measuring the effectiveness of education, teachers, and charities.
gsibble 12y ago
The most successful entrepreneurs are the ones who live in this territory. See Peter Thiel's book regarding monopolies vs. perfect competition. If you invent something new, you will have a monopoly on it.

btown 12y ago

It's a very interesting perspective to think of "creative destruction" [1] in terms of acceleration/virality coefficients. If the net multiplier coefficient on jobs per [technological advance/new business based on technology] is below 1, then the economic system is unstable, as it could trend towards long-term unemployment and revolution (if Marx is to be believed). Of course, due to regulation and human nature, it's a damped system - not all jobs will be eliminated. But if that coefficient is above 1, then the system will stabilize. The relevant question here is how, as technology entrepreneurs, we can both (a) create resilient, scalable businesses that individually have a coefficient above 1, and (b) create resilient, scalable systems that promote the creation of those businesses in (a). The difficulty is tying these coefficients to the bottom lines of each of these businesses. I'm co-founding a startup now that, without delving into specifics, aims to link the value of its core consumer brand with its ability to generate jobs and income. Time (and lots of effort) will tell whether we can (a) make this successful, and (b) whether it can lead our industry as a whole towards seeing the viability of this trend. But I'm confident that we have a fighting chance to do as much as any single business can to promote the sustainability of human society. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_destruction#Joseph_Schumpeter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_destruction#Joseph_Sc...