Startup Stagnation

One thing Ive realized after working in software for a while is that software itself has very little ability to be applied in a way that is directly transformative to the human condition. By and large software is a tool to carry out an existing process or idea in a more efficient way, and in this regard it is a job-destroyer ready to eat the work of anyone who performs non-creative or intellectual tasks. This is what software does and the reason it can be so profitable - you can effectively capture the cost savings of automating very large processes. In fact the majority of startups when you strip them of their branding and buzzwords are just this ... they provide increased efficiency around an existing process whether it be social or business or otherwise. There is nothing inherently wrong with this in that it is the business of software. Additionally it also absolutely does not mean that these companies do not matter or are inconsequential but if you are looking for the true way software is transformational to the human condition, I think many are looking through the wrong lense completely...<p>The way software is truly transformational to the human condition is by freeing more and more of us from doing mindless tasks that only feel good to some due the distortions our current educational system and perverted social incentives. We should be celebrating the destruction of automatable jobs so more of us can be free to live better in whatever way that may mean. This doesn't happen in reality because our current system gives little to no rewards for doing other things like living, experiencing, helping, or learning - what actually happens to those people is that they go without another job and flounder. There are very few ladders to guide anyone displaced and thats a shame because their energy could be used in an endless number of ways for society.

<i>"If you enjoy thoughtful and smart writing, and being a part of a meaningful conversation ..."</i><p>Then don't read this guy apparently. A page of snarky comments? When YC invests in a promising team that has yet to have an idea that is "investing in nothing", but a MacArthur Genius Grant is "investing in the future" ?<p>I understand that to a lot of people outside of the startup eco-system or outside of technology in general don't "get" what it is we do, they also don't "get" how Google makes billions shoving just the right advertisement in front of them at just the right time, and they don't "get" that they haven't looked in a paper copy of the Yellow Pages in years or cracked open any of the 27 volumes of the World Book Encyclopedia on their shelf that they got for their kids 10 years ago. But to spend time and energy hating on something you don't understand, well that isn't really a meaningful use of your time is it? And telling someone who is having a great time doing something they love that it isn't "meaningful" is also just mean.

“Some of the most successful technology companies haven’t done much for job growth: “Take the ubiquitous iPod. It’s created less than 14,000 jobs in the U.S., Internet giant Google, 20,000 employees, Twitter, a mere 300””<p>It's absolutely absurd to imply that the extent of Google's effect on our economy is a sum of their employees. That quote completely mis-understands how markets work.<p>Google provides services that have completely revolutionized how people find information and build buisnesses. Of course that has impacted job growth.

I think the points made are good.<p>Modern efficiencies have eliminated a lot of jobs. Fact. No point in arguing about whether it's good or bad. It just is. So don't waste time trying to defend Apple or Google. They are just successful in their time. Good for them.<p>Consider though, that many of us who are fortunate enough to be working in the information tech / startup area, are focusing most of our efforts of creating products consumers don't even know they want or need yet, but we hope they find super cool. Hopefully the product gives us enough users to figure out how to make money off ads or something. Cool, fine.<p>I have to agree that it's a shame that there isn't more momentum behind figuring out how to solve problems that people already have. Figuring out problems that would benefit the vast majority of people who don't work in information technology, who just so happen to be finding it harder to find good jobs because of information technology.

&#62; <i>The truth is, we may well be in the largest slowdown of technological growth in human history. Economist Tyler Cowen calls this the “great stagnation.”</i><p>relevant relink: Peter Thiel and George Gilder debate the prospects for technology and economic growth[1]. The basis of Thiel's argument comes down to the price of energy. He's bearish. He notes that Warren Buffet's biggest bet, which is on trains that transport 40% by volume coal, is a bet that clean, cheap energy tech will fail.<p>[1] <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRrLyckg8Nc" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRrLyckg8Nc</a>

&#62;&#62; The 19th-century kitchen was built around a live fireplace, but then we rapidly benefited from electricity, water, and gas stoves. Then the past fifty years brought no major technological changes.<p>Ever heard of microwave ovens? Automatic dishwashers? Pretty significant kitchen innovations in the last 50 years.

"In short, if software is truly eating the world, then it needs to be more meaningful." I think we are slowly getting there. But, areas such as politics, education and medicine are really behind the curve. I've noticed a lot more start ups focused on the well being of humanity and our personal lives. Sites like nextdoor.com and myenergy.com come to mind.

Worth noting that this is an excerpt of a (much) longer essay in Distance: <a href="http://distance.cc" rel="nofollow">http://distance.cc</a><p>Some of the critiques here are totally fair, but folks should read the whole thing before forming a final opinion.

If the goal is to give everyone a job, we are definitely on the wrong track.<p>We should strive for the world where you don't actually need a job, then all this jobs "gained/lost" talk would be moot. I know I'm not the only one who has read Player Piano.

Reminds me of <a href="http://www.foundersfund.com/the-future" rel="nofollow">http://www.foundersfund.com/the-future</a>

I think there is an underlying assumption when VCs "invest in nothing" - the founder knows how to make a startup succeed, the actual product notwithstanding. The biggest risk in startups today is not the product, but the founders ability to succeed. The idea doesn't matter, the execution doesn't matter, the connections don't matter, even the near-term profits don't matter. What matters is if you can get a million people to use the product regularly. Risk(Founders who have done that once and have no product now) &#60; Risk(First-time founders with a product).<p>This brings me to the biggest problem with startups that nobody seems to address and in fact, every successful/smart/talented/skilled person contributes towards it - every single startup is reinventing the wheel and that is inefficient. Step back and think about any given startup. They have to do all of the following: Setup accounting/legal/corporation, manage employees/payroll/benefits, perform data analysis/SEO/marketing, excel at PR/word-of-mouth, engage with users, encourage developers, design their brand, manage infrastructure (even AWS/Heroku accounts need pampering), source funding, present at tradeshows/industry-conferences, and tons of other boring things that you will see mentioned in expensive 20 page e-books and "X things you should do" lists. The worst part is that they have to this on top of making their product work in every environment: multiple browsers, mobile devices, app stores, online/offline modes, hi-res/lo-res graphics, hi/lo bandwidth, multiple languages/regions, and do all of that 24/7.<p>Why isn't all of the repeatable stuff outsourced in bulk, while still enabling the founders to develop the product and own equity? If you work for Google, you don't have to worry about any of this and just hack away on your code and let someone else market it and manage payroll. But you're trading away your high-equity/high-risk for a fixed salary/bonus. Why isn't there a median between coding at Google with no equity/risk and do-everything in your startup? Being an early hire at a startup doesn't cut it because it's high-risk/low-equity. Imagine if you could join YC and all you have to worry about is making a good product and someone else manages everything, while you still get to collect X% of your product sales. And if you feel YC isn't doing a good enough job, you can easily switch to XYZ and after a brief catch-up, they can take over everything. Certainly this happens already during acquisitions or switching vendors.<p>Why can't there be a one-stop-shop-startup-vendor who handles everything about running a startup? And why can't there be more of them so they can all compete for the best founders/products? I know I've simplified a lot of complex issues here but I think big ideas start with solving difficult problems. And running a startup isn't easy. Running 800 is near impossible. But it could happen.<p>Off-topic but related: I kept trying to clean my LCD thinking there were small spots on it. Turns out it is the site's background.