A critique of trends in tech(medium.com)
medium.com
A critique of trends in tech
https://medium.com/@freddiedeboer/the-three-hot-trends-in-silicon-valley-horseshit-95cc5a85e8a4
251 comments
I started using DSC early on because their marketing video was hilarious, and I was always forgetting to buy razors when I needed them. Now they've expanded out into a whole range of bathroom products, most of which are about the same price as they would be in a store, which makes it an easy choice.
When I put my account on hold, they don't spam me, begging me to come back. When I switched to every other month on razors, there was no dramatic emails or price changes. When I switched versions of the razor, they just shipped me a new handle. They've been doing this razor thing for ~7 years, and in that they haven't given me a single reason to complain. Its nice to have a transaction with a "startup" that does exactly what it says it's going to do.
When I put my account on hold, they don't spam me, begging me to come back. When I switched to every other month on razors, there was no dramatic emails or price changes. When I switched versions of the razor, they just shipped me a new handle. They've been doing this razor thing for ~7 years, and in that they haven't given me a single reason to complain. Its nice to have a transaction with a "startup" that does exactly what it says it's going to do.
Their other products are 3 to 4 times more expensive than perfectly reasonable options available at any megastore.
Eh, I don't think Dollar Shave Club fits in with the article's examples. The value created is that many people want to spend more money and less of their time with consistent results. The company doesn't try to ratchet up margin with unnecessary tech, it just satisfies a legitimate customer demand. That might be a customer demand you don't identify with, or which you believe shouldn't exist; it's still a legitimate demand.
The article is mainly talking about companies that augment existing products with shallow improvements for the sake of large margin increases. Dollar Shave Club is novel in that it adds a service to abstract away the thinking portion of buying a razor. It makes no attempt to increase profits with shitty tech.
The article is mainly talking about companies that augment existing products with shallow improvements for the sake of large margin increases. Dollar Shave Club is novel in that it adds a service to abstract away the thinking portion of buying a razor. It makes no attempt to increase profits with shitty tech.
Just like the "legitimate demand" for heroin or cigarettes!
While we're at it can we get rid of the FDA so we can go back to a world filled with the "legitimate demand" for laudnum sold as a miracle cure for consumption, hysterics and gout?
Neoliberalism, by mixing ethical relativism with social Darwinism, allows for some rent seeking asshat to sleep well at night because they authorised a marketing campaign featuring a black woman.
Good job, Team Progress! All we need are just a few more empty words and a few more empty products... We're almost there!
While we're at it can we get rid of the FDA so we can go back to a world filled with the "legitimate demand" for laudnum sold as a miracle cure for consumption, hysterics and gout?
Neoliberalism, by mixing ethical relativism with social Darwinism, allows for some rent seeking asshat to sleep well at night because they authorised a marketing campaign featuring a black woman.
Good job, Team Progress! All we need are just a few more empty words and a few more empty products... We're almost there!
Yeah, no. Heroin and tobacco are products, and I am in agreement that products with crappy value propositions and high margins are unethical. But I don't know why you chose those extremes. They paint a false dichotomy of the danger inherent to liberty of consumption.
If we have to use extreme analogies, I would rather use prostitution, because it is a service. Just like Dollar Shave Club, I think there is legitimate customer demand and it shouldn't be illegal. I also am not going to judge someone for partaking of it even though there exist easier or cheaper options for getting the product - sex. So that just brings us full circle to my original point, which appears to still stand.
If we have to use extreme analogies, I would rather use prostitution, because it is a service. Just like Dollar Shave Club, I think there is legitimate customer demand and it shouldn't be illegal. I also am not going to judge someone for partaking of it even though there exist easier or cheaper options for getting the product - sex. So that just brings us full circle to my original point, which appears to still stand.
Yes, please, FDA isn't doing anyone any favors right now. Throw it out and build something more reasonable like they have in basically every other nation on earth.
I have gout, which is well controlled by not eating too much meat at a sitting and occasional "doses" of tart cherry juice. FDA would prefer I spend hundreds of dollars a year on drugs. I'm not sure what to recommend for your hysterics, however.
I have gout, which is well controlled by not eating too much meat at a sitting and occasional "doses" of tart cherry juice. FDA would prefer I spend hundreds of dollars a year on drugs. I'm not sure what to recommend for your hysterics, however.
> FDA would prefer I spend hundreds of dollars a year on drugs.
Would you elaborate on this? It leads me to think that the FDA is either recommending against you handling your gout as you see fit through diet, or strongly encouraging you to use the medication you'd rather not spend money on. The FDA may approve drugs for specific treatments, but that doesn't mean you have to use them, does it?
Would you elaborate on this? It leads me to think that the FDA is either recommending against you handling your gout as you see fit through diet, or strongly encouraging you to use the medication you'd rather not spend money on. The FDA may approve drugs for specific treatments, but that doesn't mean you have to use them, does it?
I think it's the pharmaceutical industry that would prefer you give them money, not the FDA which is government funded.
Admittedly some in the FDA are probably protecting the pharma industry.
Admittedly some in the FDA are probably protecting the pharma industry.
"More than a quarter of the Food and Drug Administration employees who approved cancer and hematology drugs from 2001 through 2010 left the agency and now work or consult for pharmaceutical companies..." [0]
Of course some naive person might demand some sort of smoking-gun admission of collusion or whatever...
[0] http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/09/28/49569455...
Of course some naive person might demand some sort of smoking-gun admission of collusion or whatever...
[0] http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/09/28/49569455...
Ah I see your point.
While I agree DSC seems insane, you are looking at it from the wrong end: most customers were used to paying crazy prices at the grocery store. DSC is cheap by comparison, even if you can get the same blades for less elsewhere. Dorco could have run the same business, but DSC figured out how to market it.
You can point directly to marketing for Dollar Shave Club's success, and nothing more. They emerged at around the same time as things like Amazon's subscription service, which offers the same or even greater value (the selection is much greater), with a company that people are already familiar with. But DSC paid for podcast and TV advertisement, so instead of people going from grocery store to finding their own cheaper alternative, they went straight to DSC.
From a business standpoint it's a great strategy executed at the right time, even if it does feel icky.
Personally I use a stainless steel safety razor for $30 that will last forever, and blades that I got from Amazon at $12 for 100, each lasting about two weeks of every other day shaves as I have fine facial hair. DSC can't beat $12/year.
From a business standpoint it's a great strategy executed at the right time, even if it does feel icky.
Personally I use a stainless steel safety razor for $30 that will last forever, and blades that I got from Amazon at $12 for 100, each lasting about two weeks of every other day shaves as I have fine facial hair. DSC can't beat $12/year.
I did the same! Spent $60 on a nice mercer(?) stainless razor and maybe $20 in the past 5 years for Astra platinum (?) blades. Feels amazing. If only nice shaving cream was as cheap!
It's merkur solingen
I've recently discovered Amazon's subscription service (shopping for cat litter of all things) and since I'm already paying for Prime as well... why not?
I can imagine partly for the reasons you just listed, larger established players will ultimately push the DSCs out of the market. Probably Amazon single handedly.
I can imagine partly for the reasons you just listed, larger established players will ultimately push the DSCs out of the market. Probably Amazon single handedly.
I have yet to pull the trigger on any Amazon subscription purchases myself. Seems perfect for something like cat litter where you kinda know you're definitely going to use x amount everyday, but for most things I feel like I don't have a definite daily usage and subscribing to them will end up with too much coming too soon, or not enough coming too late.
But that's a knock on me, not the subscription service. If I kept better track and knew for sure that I use 1/60th of a 12 ounce bottle of shampoo everyday, or whatever, then I'd be more inclined to subscribe to that once every two months.
But that's a knock on me, not the subscription service. If I kept better track and knew for sure that I use 1/60th of a 12 ounce bottle of shampoo everyday, or whatever, then I'd be more inclined to subscribe to that once every two months.
Yeah I drink a consistent amount of Monster every day, and I work out very regularly. I have subscriptions for Monster and for my particular brand of whey. I can't think of anything else -- though cat litter is a perfect example, too -- that I'd sign up for a subscription for. Even my deodorant seems to be used at different rates.
Bald guy here. Currently using DSC. Can you link that safety razor you bought?
Thanks.
Thanks.
Can't speak for the parent, but here is the one I use: https://www.amazon.com/Merkur-HD-34C-Chrome-Plated/dp/B001LY...
You'll want to try a few different brands of blade with it, as there's no one "silver bullet" blade that works best for everybody. Lots of vendors sell sample packs on Amazon containing a few blades each from a bunch of different brands. Here's an example: https://www.amazon.com/Double-Edge-Razor-Blade-Sample/dp/B01...
If you want to really nerd out on this subject, the place to be is the Badger & Blade forums: https://www.badgerandblade.com/forum/
You'll want to try a few different brands of blade with it, as there's no one "silver bullet" blade that works best for everybody. Lots of vendors sell sample packs on Amazon containing a few blades each from a bunch of different brands. Here's an example: https://www.amazon.com/Double-Edge-Razor-Blade-Sample/dp/B01...
If you want to really nerd out on this subject, the place to be is the Badger & Blade forums: https://www.badgerandblade.com/forum/
I use the basic safety razor from Maggards: https://www.maggardrazors.com/product/maggard-razors-basic-s...
It's very late, but I'm here with another recommendation. I use Astra brand safety razors. I get a pack of 100 for less than ten dollars. They always seem to last much longer than any of those disposable blades I used to buy (e.g. Mach 3). A lot longer.
I think the other commenters have answered this question better than I could at this point. I originally bought mine through a "The Art Of Shaving" retail store on a whim when I saw one at a mall. They're overpriced and I wouldn't necessarily buy from them again.
If you don't need new, you can get perfectly fine vintage razors from eBay for ~$20. I have a Gillette SuperSpeed from the 60's that's served me well for eight years now.
>DSC figured out how to market it.
Viral absurdist ads à la Old Spice.
Viral absurdist ads à la Old Spice.
You must not be aware that Dorco actually has started a business just like DSC, for less, selling its own hardware.
A service like DSC that I thought was brilliant is that one that does air conditioning filters. I forgot its name, but I always forget to change my filter, and you're only supposed to do it every 6 months. Then because it's been so long, I invariably forget what size I need, buy the wrong one, have to go back... Ship me a filter every 6 months? Awesome! THAT'S a company I see as "adding value".
No affiliation, not even a subscriber -- just had a "duh" moment when I saw their ad.
No affiliation, not even a subscriber -- just had a "duh" moment when I saw their ad.
I just let my thermostat alert me, based on run time. It worked with my old programmable, it works with my Nest (yeah, I know). And since I buy 3-packs of the filters, when I get down to the last one, I just add "16x20x1 filters" to my shopping list. When I'm at Wallyworld or Home Despot/Blowes, I'm there for a reason, open my shopping list, and see the filters listed...
I signed up for Amazon's repeat delivery, which not only reminds me to change it (oh look a filter showed up time to change!) but it saved me money too. It's way cheaper than that subscription program (I looked at that too).
[deleted]
I made a recurring google calendar alert to solve this problem...
My life is much better when I optimize for convenience instead of saving money when the money is in the "handful of dollars" range. And yes, never again having to think about having to buy a routine item is convenient. It seems patently obvious that a subscription is more convenient than having to remember to buy something on a regular basis; I can't believe there's even debate about that. You can certainly debate whether the additional cost is worth the convenience, but I don't see how you can claim that there is no difference in convenience.
Dollar Shave Club seems like an obscenely over-engineered solution when safety razor blades cost $0.12 each, and a pack of 100 blades easily lasts for 1-2 years and fits anywhere.
Shaving is not a new problem.
Shaving is not a new problem.
Or if you don't shave every day, and have a wimpy beard to begin with, that box of 100 might last (lemmee see...carry the one...) about 5 years. I think that's when I bought that box for $30 off Amazon.
In other words, I, too, do not think about buying razor blades. At least more than every five years or so. And when I reach into that long cardboard tube only to find it empty of fresh blades, Amazon will have another five year supply at my door in two days. Six bucks a year: I'll bet it costs DSC more than that just in postage.
In other words, I, too, do not think about buying razor blades. At least more than every five years or so. And when I reach into that long cardboard tube only to find it empty of fresh blades, Amazon will have another five year supply at my door in two days. Six bucks a year: I'll bet it costs DSC more than that just in postage.
but your talking about something that doesn't spoil. why not just buy a ton once and be good for several years?
The DSC is basically paying for a reminder to change your razor, not shave with it till it's awful.
The same could be accomplished by a calendar notification of course.
The same could be accomplished by a calendar notification of course.
Dollar Shave Club is a marketing engine, Dorco is not. Few people order from Dorco because few people know they exist.
so what % of the margins on "subscription box" services comes from people forgetting / being too lazy to cancel? all of it? perishables and other time sensitive stuff notwithstanding, there is no reason getting something shipped monthly is going to be a better deal than buying in bulk. these people are obviously just trying to make a buck. they are full of shit if they say they are trying to create value, but they aren't really hurting anyone i guess. its mostly on the consumers for buying it.
Amazon Subscribe and Save gives you 15% off on your order if you schedule 6 or more items.
Economies of scale to drive prices down by 15% over what you would normally pay do exist. E.g. Amazon can save money individual per-unit shipping costs by sending the entire shipment over in one go every month. The promise (and likelihood) of continual recurring revenue means the net margin made per transaction can be lower yet still sustainable for Amazon, while benefitting the consumer.
Economies of scale to drive prices down by 15% over what you would normally pay do exist. E.g. Amazon can save money individual per-unit shipping costs by sending the entire shipment over in one go every month. The promise (and likelihood) of continual recurring revenue means the net margin made per transaction can be lower yet still sustainable for Amazon, while benefitting the consumer.
I like DSC. I know I could get razors cheaper in bulk but I prefer the convenience and it's still much cheaper than buying $15+ packs at the store.
Nitpick: DSC is headquartered in Los Angeles, not Silicon Valley.
Nitpick: DSC is headquartered in Los Angeles, not Silicon Valley.
I bought a medium sized package of Schick Injector razor blades about five years ago. At this rate, that might be a lifetime supply - they don't really get dull, and you can use them almost forever.
Granted, I like my beard and don't shave daily, but even when I was keeping up the same routine and using Gilette-style cartridge razor blades, I was burning through them much faster.
Granted, I like my beard and don't shave daily, but even when I was keeping up the same routine and using Gilette-style cartridge razor blades, I was burning through them much faster.
I'm a very happy injector user, nice close shave, minimal plastic waste. My only complaint is that the blades are expensive compared to double-edges (still cheap compared to cartridge razors)
Why convenience? So people can go 'do what they love'? Or in reality, so people can spend more time on vapid social apps and feel like they're on top of trends?
Groundbreaking innovations do not happen every day. Small, slow incremental change (repackaging old stuff) moves us forward as well.
To refute his point, You can subscribe to receive razors every 1-6 months on Amazon.
The only value I see him creating is value for his company haha.
The only value I see him creating is value for his company haha.
I don't use DSC but the value they provide is that you always have a razor. A lot of people have to shave for work and forgetting to buy razors at the store sucks. It means you have to shave with an old, dull razor. They charge you to avoid that situation.
My favorite part of this article is the hypocrisy. It's a huge rant about how stupid an unattractive people are if they buy into the new hot thing from Silicon Valley that doesn't do anything new; and then there it is, on line 2 of the page: "This is an automated feed of the blog posts at http://fredrikdeboer.com".
It seems like he forgot one line item in his list:
2012, Medium: At last, a way to post text on the internet!
It seems like he forgot one line item in his list:
2012, Medium: At last, a way to post text on the internet!
It's not hypocrisy, it's offloading traffic to a company who hasn't quite figured out how to make money, but is willing to provide the author with analytics and hosting in exchange (... for what exactly???)
In other words, it's milking the freebies.
In other words, it's milking the freebies.
My interpretation was that he didn't think that improving posting text to the Internet was inherently bad, just that the Silicon Valley hype around what are just improvements to an old model is strange. I think you can say the hype around a thing is ridiculous without saying that it is worthless
Well in response to someone saying they worry about him he says, "Don’t. My life has never been better. Remember it’s a persona."
So take that salt into consideration. Besides he never said every bit of tech is bad.
So take that salt into consideration. Besides he never said every bit of tech is bad.
[deleted]
Rents aren't high because fat cats are charging more money. Rents are high because of supply and demand. That's literally all there is to it. Someone is going to get the house and someone isn't, and the one who gets it will be the one offering more money. The only thing the fat cats change is what proportion of the money goes to which people. The amount of money comes from supply and demand.
> Rents are high because of supply and demand. That's literally all there is to it.
Except that's literally not all there is to it, that's just one component of the problem. It turns out housing is just a tiny bit more complicated than your first day of Econ 101. The half dozen empty skyscrapers lots of us pass by each day seem to indicate that.
"High Rent is just supply and demand" is the new "I could rebuild that whole app in one weekend".
Except that's literally not all there is to it, that's just one component of the problem. It turns out housing is just a tiny bit more complicated than your first day of Econ 101. The half dozen empty skyscrapers lots of us pass by each day seem to indicate that.
"High Rent is just supply and demand" is the new "I could rebuild that whole app in one weekend".
> that's just one component of the problem.
Which components influence the problem here without ending up only being an influencer on the supply or the demand?
> It turns out housing is just a tiny bit more complicated than your first day of Econ 101. The half dozen empty skyscrapers lots of us pass by each day seem to indicate that.
I do not see where your example indicates that. In this case, an owner is not required to make his property, even if vacant, available on the market. That affects the supply in the market. That still comes down to basic supply and demand.
Which components influence the problem here without ending up only being an influencer on the supply or the demand?
> It turns out housing is just a tiny bit more complicated than your first day of Econ 101. The half dozen empty skyscrapers lots of us pass by each day seem to indicate that.
I do not see where your example indicates that. In this case, an owner is not required to make his property, even if vacant, available on the market. That affects the supply in the market. That still comes down to basic supply and demand.
[deleted]
> Which components influence the problem here without ending up only being an influencer on the supply or the demand?
If all the relevant components "just" affect supply and demand then it's useless to analyze supply and demand. Take a step back and analyze those components.
If all the relevant components "just" affect supply and demand then it's useless to analyze supply and demand. Take a step back and analyze those components.
The only analysis I see in the original comment is what determines price, and the answer truly is supply and demand. I may be interesting to look at why the supply and the demand are what they are, but that seems to be outside of the scope of this discussion.
From a practical perspective, I'm not sure further analysis is necessary either. Price, as determined by basic supply and demand principles, is a useful signalling mechanism even without understanding the underlying reasons.
From a practical perspective, I'm not sure further analysis is necessary either. Price, as determined by basic supply and demand principles, is a useful signalling mechanism even without understanding the underlying reasons.
What else do you think influences rents?
Owners of the existing supply, especially oligopolists, telling the city council not to build any new supply.
To the extent that's true, artificial constriction of supply does not escape "supply and demand".
It certainly takes the wind out of the Officer-Barbradyesque "Move along people! Nothing to see here!" we got from the Ec 10 auditor upthread.
I didn't read that at all.
In fact, understanding that it's all about supply and demand is a critical step for tackling this issue and allowing new supply. I see far more resistance to new housing from people who don't understand econ 101 than from those who do.
In fact, understanding that it's all about supply and demand is a critical step for tackling this issue and allowing new supply. I see far more resistance to new housing from people who don't understand econ 101 than from those who do.
I read this: The only thing the fat cats change is what proportion of the money goes to which people.
Though this is a basic neoclassical assumption, it is definitely not true for any of the markets that have seen the most extreme price inflation. "The fat cats" have limited supply in those markets, not by the old-fashioned oligopolist technique of buying all available land, but by the more modern and more corrupt technique of dictating their favored regulations to the local politicians and regulators whose elections and appointments they have bankrolled.
Though this is a basic neoclassical assumption, it is definitely not true for any of the markets that have seen the most extreme price inflation. "The fat cats" have limited supply in those markets, not by the old-fashioned oligopolist technique of buying all available land, but by the more modern and more corrupt technique of dictating their favored regulations to the local politicians and regulators whose elections and appointments they have bankrolled.
In Vancouver, it seems popular to mention wealthy Chinese demand.
While it doesn't escape supply and demand, I'd note that most markets, especially those in the realm of international trade and money flows, are administered by governments and adulterated by politics.
While it doesn't escape supply and demand, I'd note that most markets, especially those in the realm of international trade and money flows, are administered by governments and adulterated by politics.
Supply and demand is bullshit - a just-so story used to "explain" unhelpful economic outcomes to the victims of those outcomes.
Neither supply nor demand are objectively or scientifically measurable.
They're psychological and political positions, and both are reliably manipulated in all kinds of outrageous ways.
Most of the time the pricing signals you get from a market haven't just been filtered through these processes, they've been defined by them.
Neither supply nor demand are objectively or scientifically measurable.
They're psychological and political positions, and both are reliably manipulated in all kinds of outrageous ways.
Most of the time the pricing signals you get from a market haven't just been filtered through these processes, they've been defined by them.
Ok.
Now please explain how the decision to block proposed housing units near my office is not responsible for the prohibitively high cost of the units that did get through.
Now please explain how the decision to block proposed housing units near my office is not responsible for the prohibitively high cost of the units that did get through.
That is not how it works.
Prices are set by the relative leverage and political power of various competing groups, subject to local variations.
The usual rule is that investors and speculators have more power than developers, developers have more power than landlords, and landlords have more power than entry-level house buyers. Existing house buyers sometimes have local power which is more or less on the same level as landlords, with local variations.
Local planning laws and special interests can distort this relationship in various ways, but they can't change the fundamentals.
Two things can:
One is a change in government policy towards building housing to increase access and lower costs - which is unlikely, because investors and speculators tend to own policy. Even though asset inflation and boom/bust churn is a huge drain on the economy, effective national house building programs rarely happen, and when they do they tend to be literally low-rent, not middle class.
The other is a macro-level slump, which can take out the top level - but almost always at the cost of losses in leverage and power all the way down the chain, some of which lead to debt and/or homelessness.
Prices are set by the relative leverage and political power of various competing groups, subject to local variations.
The usual rule is that investors and speculators have more power than developers, developers have more power than landlords, and landlords have more power than entry-level house buyers. Existing house buyers sometimes have local power which is more or less on the same level as landlords, with local variations.
Local planning laws and special interests can distort this relationship in various ways, but they can't change the fundamentals.
Two things can:
One is a change in government policy towards building housing to increase access and lower costs - which is unlikely, because investors and speculators tend to own policy. Even though asset inflation and boom/bust churn is a huge drain on the economy, effective national house building programs rarely happen, and when they do they tend to be literally low-rent, not middle class.
The other is a macro-level slump, which can take out the top level - but almost always at the cost of losses in leverage and power all the way down the chain, some of which lead to debt and/or homelessness.
>Prices are set by the relative leverage and political power of various competing groups, subject to local variations.
Show me some examples of cities with high prices due to high speculator/developer/landlord power, that don't also have population growth and restrictive zoning.
And how does your theory explain the apparently enormous power of speculators, developers, and landlords in San Francisco, where they are subject to draconian legal restrictions?
How do you explain the apparently nonexistent power of speculators, developers, and landlords in a low-rent city like Milwaukee, where tenants' rights are minimal and developers can build pretty much whatever and wherever they want?
>investors and speculators tend to own policy
Are you suggesting that investors and speculators are secretly funding "grassroots" opposition to the developer ventures they also fund? Because the people who show up to planning meetings to speak against development at least present themselves as existing residents and tenants concerned about crowding, shadow, and gentrification.
>One is a change in government policy towards building housing to increase access and lower costs
So you agree that prices are kept high by government policy to not build housing.
Then how is what I said "not how it works"?
Show me some examples of cities with high prices due to high speculator/developer/landlord power, that don't also have population growth and restrictive zoning.
And how does your theory explain the apparently enormous power of speculators, developers, and landlords in San Francisco, where they are subject to draconian legal restrictions?
How do you explain the apparently nonexistent power of speculators, developers, and landlords in a low-rent city like Milwaukee, where tenants' rights are minimal and developers can build pretty much whatever and wherever they want?
>investors and speculators tend to own policy
Are you suggesting that investors and speculators are secretly funding "grassroots" opposition to the developer ventures they also fund? Because the people who show up to planning meetings to speak against development at least present themselves as existing residents and tenants concerned about crowding, shadow, and gentrification.
>One is a change in government policy towards building housing to increase access and lower costs
So you agree that prices are kept high by government policy to not build housing.
Then how is what I said "not how it works"?
"High Rent is just supply and demand" is the new "I could rebuild that whole app in one weekend".
"We can fix this problem with simple government regulations" is also up there.
"We can fix this problem with simple government regulations" is also up there.
Pretty sure that's true though. Unfortunately, rationality is usurped by ideology. Suggesting things outside a narrow dogmatic range is seen as heresy; regardless of how strong the empirical evidence is.
Rent is high because supply has been restricted by low-density zoning regulations, especially in San Francisco and Seattle.
Policy-market mismatch is partially due to low participation in local politics, and partially due to high-income neighborhoods influencing local politics to keep their area low-density (raising their property value and the surrounding area's rent).
Policy-market mismatch is partially due to low participation in local politics, and partially due to high-income neighborhoods influencing local politics to keep their area low-density (raising their property value and the surrounding area's rent).
Huh? Seattle is dense.
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/data/seattle-densit...
Ok, so it is no Manila or Shanghai, but it is denser than low regulation "build baby build" Houston Texas.
A lot of the low density places in Seattle are places that wouldn't support density very well anyways (i.e. hills); places that you don't see density at even in mega dense Hong Kong.
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/data/seattle-densit...
Ok, so it is no Manila or Shanghai, but it is denser than low regulation "build baby build" Houston Texas.
A lot of the low density places in Seattle are places that wouldn't support density very well anyways (i.e. hills); places that you don't see density at even in mega dense Hong Kong.
Seattle is higher density than Houston, but it's not keeping up with demand in areas of high-demand. That's part of why so many people are getting priced out of their neighborhoods (especially around Capitol Hill)... an expanded and improved transportation network would help, but I understand the city is shackled by the county on that...
Seattle has a unique topography and is hemmed in even more than San Francisco is. Ya, you can save money by living in federal way, Everette or, in the past at least issaquah, but that means commuting.
We're not running up against those topological constraints yet. Consider Capitol Hill, rent is sky rocketing near Pike/Pine/Cal Anderson... yet there are blocks and blocks of single-family 2 story homes.
[deleted]
San Francisco is the second-densest city in the US, mind.
That's not to say new residential construction isn't hard in SF - though there have been huge increases in high density construction in just the last few years.
That's not to say new residential construction isn't hard in SF - though there have been huge increases in high density construction in just the last few years.
San Francisco and Seattle are both constructing very high density buildings near their city centers, but they struggle to build up outside those areas. Spreading the growth and investing in public transportation help keep costs down and spread success.
Do you remember the mass foreclosures? Do you see the sea of For Sale signs everywhere? Do you know who bought the lion's share of the defaults? It isn't the privates who fueled the housing/rental costs. You don't need to click ZeroHedge or formulate conspiracy theories, just visit the county assessor's site and try to unravel all the LLCs and "trusts" to determine who controls the market.
Never have to look far in a thread like this to find the kid who thinks economies work like Econ 101. Here's a piece of advice: anytime you find yourself concluding with "it's that simple" you're probably not thinking critically about the issue.
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." - H. L. Mencken
Supply and demand really is that simple. Trying to understand everything that leads to a given supply and a given demand at a given point in time is where economics becomes incredibly complex, but supply and demand does not concern itself with those matters.
This was a really good article that shifted my thinking away from simplistic Econ 101 thinking about real estate: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commen...
Yes, but the actual question is: How could you lower demand or raise supply?
The cure for high prices is high prices.
People are willing to pay increasingly high amounts of rent because they see value in occupying that space. Perhaps because the area provides high paying jobs that, even after having to pay those costs, more than justifies the expense. Whatever their reason, they have evaluated all their options and have determined that this place is to their greatest benefit. When people stop seeing value, they will stop spending.
At the same time, as rents go higher and higher, the incentive to provide more rental properties increases. Maybe not yet, but at some point it becomes too much to ignore. Hypothetically, if the going rate for were $1M/month, I'm sure there would be many people would would be quite happy to vacate their houses to let you fill them that would not be so happy at the current rate. As the saying goes, everyone has a price. Maybe government would also improve zoning after a certain threshold, allowing new dwellings to come onto the market. A declining population would be something for government to stand up and take notice of. There's no indication that anything needs to be done when growth keeps on climbing.
People need a place to live, but I'm not convinced shelter is universally out of reach. Look out into small towns and rural areas and it is a whole different world of pricing. Yeah, maybe you will have to take a $20k/year job instead of a $150k/year job, but if you are hypothetically spending $130k/year more on rent to have that $150k/year job, your income is going to be the same in either place (ignoring the differences in other costs, including taxes, for ease of discussion). If you are paying less than $130k/year in rent in our hypothetical situation, it is easy to see where the money is coming from. Why shouldn't they pour it into housing?
People are willing to pay increasingly high amounts of rent because they see value in occupying that space. Perhaps because the area provides high paying jobs that, even after having to pay those costs, more than justifies the expense. Whatever their reason, they have evaluated all their options and have determined that this place is to their greatest benefit. When people stop seeing value, they will stop spending.
At the same time, as rents go higher and higher, the incentive to provide more rental properties increases. Maybe not yet, but at some point it becomes too much to ignore. Hypothetically, if the going rate for were $1M/month, I'm sure there would be many people would would be quite happy to vacate their houses to let you fill them that would not be so happy at the current rate. As the saying goes, everyone has a price. Maybe government would also improve zoning after a certain threshold, allowing new dwellings to come onto the market. A declining population would be something for government to stand up and take notice of. There's no indication that anything needs to be done when growth keeps on climbing.
People need a place to live, but I'm not convinced shelter is universally out of reach. Look out into small towns and rural areas and it is a whole different world of pricing. Yeah, maybe you will have to take a $20k/year job instead of a $150k/year job, but if you are hypothetically spending $130k/year more on rent to have that $150k/year job, your income is going to be the same in either place (ignoring the differences in other costs, including taxes, for ease of discussion). If you are paying less than $130k/year in rent in our hypothetical situation, it is easy to see where the money is coming from. Why shouldn't they pour it into housing?
I think there are some extremely straightforward answers to those problems :P
It's just that people don't want to for some reason (e.g. regulation), if it had been pure capitalism, I'm fairly certain someone would've built more houses by now.
It's just that people don't want to for some reason (e.g. regulation), if it had been pure capitalism, I'm fairly certain someone would've built more houses by now.
OK, how about this. Buy a house, and offer it up for rent at twice the going rate. See how easy you find it to get a tenant.
> OK, how about this. Buy a house, and offer it up for rent at twice the going rate. See how easy you find it to get a tenant
You say that as if it's ridiculous, but that is literally happening in many cities right now, word-for-word exactly as you described.
"OK, how about this. Buy up the municipal water supply and offer it at twice the going rate. See how easy it is to get people to pay the water bill" -- it turns out everyone who can possibly pay, will still pay. Because water, like housing, is a basic human necessity.
You say that as if it's ridiculous, but that is literally happening in many cities right now, word-for-word exactly as you described.
"OK, how about this. Buy up the municipal water supply and offer it at twice the going rate. See how easy it is to get people to pay the water bill" -- it turns out everyone who can possibly pay, will still pay. Because water, like housing, is a basic human necessity.
You do realize the action you described reduces the aggregate supply of housing and drives up prices by itself, right?
[deleted]
Now repeat that with not just one house, but let's say thousands of houses.
But wealth distribution does affect who is willing to pay how much, and is going to have an impact on the outcome of supply & demand.
Also, this is mostly true for rent in big cities; big corporations are essentially forcing people to move to big cities where the quality of life is lower by promising them a better future. This increases house prices and makes everyone miserable (except wealthy shareholders and landlords).
> big cities where the quality of life is lower by promising them a better future.
Is there any place in your worldview for people different than you?
This might boggle your mind, but I voluntarily choose to live in big cities even though my work is 100% remote. I could live in a super cheap rural area, but instead I choose to live here in NYC specifically because I think it's much higher quality of life here.
Your comment seems incredibly self-centered. Not everyone considers large houses and empty spaces to be the epitome of "quality life."
Is there any place in your worldview for people different than you?
This might boggle your mind, but I voluntarily choose to live in big cities even though my work is 100% remote. I could live in a super cheap rural area, but instead I choose to live here in NYC specifically because I think it's much higher quality of life here.
Your comment seems incredibly self-centered. Not everyone considers large houses and empty spaces to be the epitome of "quality life."
You do realize that many people enjoy living in big cities, right?
> forcing people [...] by promising them a better future
Something doesn't add up in your analysis.
Something doesn't add up in your analysis.
Forcing people to do things doesn't necessarily entail holding them at gunpoint.
You can make anyone do anything you want if you can bend their perception of reality - They are completely ignorant and powerless.
If you're holding someone at gunpoint, at least they have the power to beg for mercy.
You can make anyone do anything you want if you can bend their perception of reality - They are completely ignorant and powerless.
If you're holding someone at gunpoint, at least they have the power to beg for mercy.
So your opinion is that big corporations are forcing people to move to big cities by manipulating their perception of reality? Like with ads that suburban or rural life is crap, or what?
Back in the 90s there were real utopian dreams that the Internet could free us and form a world "more humane and fair than the world your governments made before" (Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace, 1996).
Instead, over the past 20 years, Silicon Valley went from being a land of dreams to an accelerator of the conditions that make middle class life so precarious in the developed world.
Nobody in the valley seems to care. Many, including those on this thread, seem to be ignorant of the fact that over the last 10 years, Silicon Valley has transformed, in people's minds, from a place that makes the future better to a place that makes the future worse, yet slightly more entertaining.
Instead, over the past 20 years, Silicon Valley went from being a land of dreams to an accelerator of the conditions that make middle class life so precarious in the developed world.
Nobody in the valley seems to care. Many, including those on this thread, seem to be ignorant of the fact that over the last 10 years, Silicon Valley has transformed, in people's minds, from a place that makes the future better to a place that makes the future worse, yet slightly more entertaining.
I am aware, but even if silicon valley was how it used to be described it was never an option. Maybe its because I am younger, but in my age group everyone went to college and got massive student loans because that's what every adult in your life told you to do.
How were you supposed to travel to the valley and work on something that didn't make you a lot of money when you had large, non dis chargeable loans tied to you for decades? The only people who had that option were rich kids, or the few who took the "bad" choice of not going to college and ended up lucking out.
Seeing people reminisce about how silicon valley used to be always reminds me of older people complaining that the youth are no longer treating college as a place to learn. Well no shit. We are, on average, much poorer than we used to be and everyone has to eat. All those old ideals are nice, but they matter much less when you end up having to work yourself to death or decide between medicine or making rent that month
How were you supposed to travel to the valley and work on something that didn't make you a lot of money when you had large, non dis chargeable loans tied to you for decades? The only people who had that option were rich kids, or the few who took the "bad" choice of not going to college and ended up lucking out.
Seeing people reminisce about how silicon valley used to be always reminds me of older people complaining that the youth are no longer treating college as a place to learn. Well no shit. We are, on average, much poorer than we used to be and everyone has to eat. All those old ideals are nice, but they matter much less when you end up having to work yourself to death or decide between medicine or making rent that month
This is the most hilarious (and sadly true) thing I've read in the last few months.
> "add a touch screen manufactured by Chinese tweens, call it “Smart,” and sell it to schlubby dads too indebted to buy a midlife crisis car and too unattractive to have an affair."
As someone who spends hours pondering the same NYC subway ads, this captures what I'm seeing better than I could ever put it.
As someone who spends hours pondering the same NYC subway ads, this captures what I'm seeing better than I could ever put it.
I appreciate the righteous anger in this piece but I enjoyed this medium take down a bit more:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13400562
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13400562
> and sell it to schlubby dads too indebted to buy a midlife crisis car and too unattractive to have an affair.
Whilst that was amusing in a bitchy kind of way, it rather meant I stopped listening to anything said after that point.
We're not dealing with a someone capable of great insight - or at least we're not dealing with someone who values insight over snark.
EDIT - I read it to the end and I'm slightly more forgiving. I came to understand the intent a bit more. I initially came to it expecting something less literary/stand up comedy and took it in the wrong context.
Whilst that was amusing in a bitchy kind of way, it rather meant I stopped listening to anything said after that point.
We're not dealing with a someone capable of great insight - or at least we're not dealing with someone who values insight over snark.
EDIT - I read it to the end and I'm slightly more forgiving. I came to understand the intent a bit more. I initially came to it expecting something less literary/stand up comedy and took it in the wrong context.
Some alternative writings (for all HN readers) with the same sentiment but in different tones than snark:
Melancholic wistfulness https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11370776
Kafka by way of Mike Judge https://www.metafilter.com/122529/Welcome-to-San-Francisco-N...
Melancholic wistfulness https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11370776
Kafka by way of Mike Judge https://www.metafilter.com/122529/Welcome-to-San-Francisco-N...
>Kafka by way of Mike Judge https://www.metafilter.com/122529/Welcome-to-San-Francisco-N....
This was written by someone who doesn't know how human interaction works. I have been in this situation twice.
2 years ago, I have lived in the same building as 20 other colleagues for 4 months. Now I am living in another city, but where most of the people I know and interact with in my free time are from work.
Both of the time, me and my coworkers played football/basketball together, barbecued in the woods, went to the lake/beach, met for pizza-and-movie, partied almost every week and even planned trips out of the country together. We almost never talk about work, and surely not more than I talk about work with other friends.
This was written by someone who doesn't know how human interaction works. I have been in this situation twice.
2 years ago, I have lived in the same building as 20 other colleagues for 4 months. Now I am living in another city, but where most of the people I know and interact with in my free time are from work.
Both of the time, me and my coworkers played football/basketball together, barbecued in the woods, went to the lake/beach, met for pizza-and-movie, partied almost every week and even planned trips out of the country together. We almost never talk about work, and surely not more than I talk about work with other friends.
Yeah, his writing style reminds me of Ted Dziuba's past posts.
More people should read Arrington's post which has a classic Teddy Roosevelt snippet: https://techcrunch.com/2007/10/12/the-man-in-the-arena/
My memory may be hazy, but I vaguely remember him during saying something similar onstage during a past YC Startup School.
More people should read Arrington's post which has a classic Teddy Roosevelt snippet: https://techcrunch.com/2007/10/12/the-man-in-the-arena/
My memory may be hazy, but I vaguely remember him during saying something similar onstage during a past YC Startup School.
Man, I miss Ted's old posts!
Wow, I stopped reading to check this thread at exactly that point.
Pretty good! That ad about "doers" is particularly ghoulish. And just generally I feel like I see the ideology of overworking as right and good all the time now. Things are not great.
Yea, I loathe those fiverr ads. When I end up in a subway car filled with them it really sours my mood. I used to have no feelings about fiverr but now I absolutely would never use it.
tl;dr; marketing adds a glossy veneer so people will overspend on useless crap, companies will screw you if it means margins are greater. So much of what society produces is meaningless nonsense.
SV doesn't have that world cornered by any means.
counterpoint: Capitalism sucks, but it seems to work better than most things we've tried thus far.
SV doesn't have that world cornered by any means.
counterpoint: Capitalism sucks, but it seems to work better than most things we've tried thus far.
> Are you the kind of person who is so worn down by the numbing drudgery of late capitalism that you can’t summon the energy to drag a 2 ounce toothbrush across your gums for 90 seconds a day? Well, the electric toothbrush has been a thing for a long time.
OK. OK. Not defending other practices in the article, but as someone who long thought electric toothbrushes were a silly gimmick but finally got (a fairly cheap) one a couple months back: they are. not. a. gimmick. Oh man. Life changing. First time I used it it felt like I'd had a professional cleaning. No amount of brushing with an ordinary one had ever done that. I could never go back. Even when I'm lazy and only do half the cycle it gets my teeth much cleaner than a manual brush could. The difference is dramatic and they're not really that expensive as long as you don't go for a bunch of stupid features.
OK. OK. Not defending other practices in the article, but as someone who long thought electric toothbrushes were a silly gimmick but finally got (a fairly cheap) one a couple months back: they are. not. a. gimmick. Oh man. Life changing. First time I used it it felt like I'd had a professional cleaning. No amount of brushing with an ordinary one had ever done that. I could never go back. Even when I'm lazy and only do half the cycle it gets my teeth much cleaner than a manual brush could. The difference is dramatic and they're not really that expensive as long as you don't go for a bunch of stupid features.
Yeah brushing form is important, and for some like myself, difficult to get right consistently. I really need an electric toothbrush.
Which model did you get?
Some oral b Braun. One without the Bluetooth connectivity(!!!) that even mid-range models seem to have now. I think it's just whatever sweethome recommended at the time. Might just be the 1000. Only feature it has is that it vibrates when you should switch quarters and vibrates differently when you should stop, in case you can't count.
[edit] yeah, confirmed, it's the "pro 1000"
[edit] yeah, confirmed, it's the "pro 1000"
Sonicare is the canonical choice!
Free trade is voluntary, we choose to participate in trade because it benefits both parties. I'm interested in seeing arguments that attack SV/society but start from this principle?
That's an idealized version of trade. The problem is that benefits can be asymmetric and pushed by irrational means, when they aren't spurious.
This may be done out of fradulent desires, but more commonly it's done because we as a society are too efficient. We have too many goods produced, so the only way to differentiate many products is through "intangibles" which obscure the actual benefits provided, and instead sell things based on irrational factors like sexiness, virility, image associations, and identity.
The customer often is forced into asymmetrical deals due to this, because of the relative quality of actual benefits provided. You don't sell cheese any more, you sell artisanal cheese. This is because if we were honest, artisanal cheese is close enough to regular cheese to be hard to differentiate, so they sell the intangibles of artisanal qualities, and people pay more for pretty much the same benefit.
I think the article shows that if you take that kind of intangible differentiation too far, you get things that end up harming the benefit to customers and society.
This may be done out of fradulent desires, but more commonly it's done because we as a society are too efficient. We have too many goods produced, so the only way to differentiate many products is through "intangibles" which obscure the actual benefits provided, and instead sell things based on irrational factors like sexiness, virility, image associations, and identity.
The customer often is forced into asymmetrical deals due to this, because of the relative quality of actual benefits provided. You don't sell cheese any more, you sell artisanal cheese. This is because if we were honest, artisanal cheese is close enough to regular cheese to be hard to differentiate, so they sell the intangibles of artisanal qualities, and people pay more for pretty much the same benefit.
I think the article shows that if you take that kind of intangible differentiation too far, you get things that end up harming the benefit to customers and society.
> This is because if we were honest, artisanal cheese is close enough to regular cheese to be hard to differentiate, so they sell the intangibles of artisanal qualities, and people pay more for pretty much the same benefit.
If people are willing to pay significantly more to derive greater enjoyment from a basically identical product, then there may be a case to be made that they are deriving greater benefit.
If people are willing to pay significantly more to derive greater enjoyment from a basically identical product, then there may be a case to be made that they are deriving greater benefit.
Tragedy of the Commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
Tragedy of the Anticommons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_anticommons
Unscrupulous diner's dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unscrupulous_diner%27s_dilemma
The usual solution to these problems is regulation by government.
Tragedy of the Anticommons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_anticommons
Unscrupulous diner's dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unscrupulous_diner%27s_dilemma
The usual solution to these problems is regulation by government.
How do these apply to what we are considering here?
Which one? The high rents in SV? That would be Tragedy of the anticommons. The single resource is the land. The numerous rightsholders are the landlords and whoever profits from high rents. This assumes that zoning laws are the biggest issue and some people would argue against that.
The more general question was how free trade, where both trade partners voluntarily participate, can lead to bad outcomes. The answer is that a non-trading third party can be harmed and the environment can be harmed. Those Wikipedia links provide many examples.
The more general question was how free trade, where both trade partners voluntarily participate, can lead to bad outcomes. The answer is that a non-trading third party can be harmed and the environment can be harmed. Those Wikipedia links provide many examples.
I'm not an economist, but I'll give it a shot: the vast influx of VC money allows for the creation of unsustainable businesses designed to "disrupt" (read: eliminate) traditional players. Buyers are happy to participate because they are getting a "deal" in the short term. Those who have been "disrupted" out of a job are often left to work for those same companies.
Meanwhile, the startup is trying to capture enough market share so that it can then raise rates and lower wages with less competition down the road. In other words, the traditional free trade model can be distorted by the effects of VCs who can operate with extraordinary scale of time and geography.
Meanwhile, the startup is trying to capture enough market share so that it can then raise rates and lower wages with less competition down the road. In other words, the traditional free trade model can be distorted by the effects of VCs who can operate with extraordinary scale of time and geography.
This is interesting. Anti-trust laws prevent dominant market players from tanking prices until competitors fold and are aquired. However these SV funding models allow new players to perform the same role on behalf of the owners of capital. My question: "is it the same owners, or different ones?"
I'll posit: the answer tells us whether we live in a competetive marketplace or monopolistic hell-zone.
I'll posit: the answer tells us whether we live in a competetive marketplace or monopolistic hell-zone.
Well the government mostly hasn't been enforcing competition laws for a few decades now, so yeah, VCs can fund startup companies to play loss-leader for a monopoly position. Hell, Peter Thiel put that strategy in his book.
[deleted]
In a perfect market? Sure. But, this is real life, not an Econ-101 textbook.
In the housing market, there are regulations put in place by NIMBYs to protect their own investments. These limit the supply of housing in popular areas, driving up prices. Nothing a rentee can do but pay up or move elsewhere.
In most job markets, the employer has more knowledge (about compensation plackages) and the job-seeker needs a job ASAP to avoid starving.
In the case of Juicero, the toothbrush subscription, etc? Closer to a textbook-pure market, for sure.
In the housing market, there are regulations put in place by NIMBYs to protect their own investments. These limit the supply of housing in popular areas, driving up prices. Nothing a rentee can do but pay up or move elsewhere.
In most job markets, the employer has more knowledge (about compensation plackages) and the job-seeker needs a job ASAP to avoid starving.
In the case of Juicero, the toothbrush subscription, etc? Closer to a textbook-pure market, for sure.
In the housing market, there are regulations put in place by NIMBYs to protect their own investments.
Econ 101 includes analyzing the effects of market interference, and in this case its predictions are exactly correct.
Econ 101 includes analyzing the effects of market interference, and in this case its predictions are exactly correct.
...this is real life, not the first chapter of an Econ-101 textbook.
Better?
Better?
> Free trade is voluntary,
Except all the times when it isn't.
Housing isn't really voluntary. Water isn't voluntary. Internet access isn't really voluntary. Electricity isn't voluntary.
Free trade requires the option to walk away without catastrophic problems occurring in your life. Increasingly, that option doesn't exist.
When the alternative is homelessness, or joblessness, or starvation, you can't honestly claim a choice was voluntary.
Except all the times when it isn't.
Housing isn't really voluntary. Water isn't voluntary. Internet access isn't really voluntary. Electricity isn't voluntary.
Free trade requires the option to walk away without catastrophic problems occurring in your life. Increasingly, that option doesn't exist.
When the alternative is homelessness, or joblessness, or starvation, you can't honestly claim a choice was voluntary.
The alternative is not homelessness, starvation, or joblessness. The alternative is the next best option.
In most cases the alternative is perfectly fine. Making trade more free makes the alternative better. If it is as trivially costly to find a new job or a different appartment as finding another restaurant, then consumers have a better bargaining position.
In most cases the alternative is perfectly fine. Making trade more free makes the alternative better. If it is as trivially costly to find a new job or a different appartment as finding another restaurant, then consumers have a better bargaining position.
>The alternative is not homelessness, starvation, or joblessness.
Tell that to all the malnourished people, all the homeless people, all the unemployed people, and most especially the families of everyone who literally died because they couldn't pay medical bills.
Tell that to all the malnourished people, all the homeless people, all the unemployed people, and most especially the families of everyone who literally died because they couldn't pay medical bills.
> If it is as trivially costly to find a new job or a different appartment as finding another restaurant, then consumers have a better bargaining position.
I don't now where you live, but where I do the next restaurant doesn't have 30-100+ people[1] competing for the same seat, the hostess doesn't run a credit check, and I'm not asked for a multiple of my meal-cost as a deposit.
It would appear to follow that
> then consumers have a better bargaining position
doesn't happen.
And...
> The alternative is not homelessness, starvation, or joblessness
We have homeless folks, we have jobless folks, and while I don't think many people outright starve to death in the U.S., we do have chronic malnourishment.
I'd like to ask you to consider how that evidence from the real world should provide feedback to your economic model of the reality in question.
This is one of my biggest frustrations with econ[2]. People mistake the map for the terrain in every field, but econ seems to positively fetishize doing it.
[1] I have personally witnessed over 100 people at an open house for a single apartment. Amazingly to me, my then-partner and I got it.
[2] Actually, it isn't all of econ - one school, in particular, seems to be highly susceptible to this mistake.
I don't now where you live, but where I do the next restaurant doesn't have 30-100+ people[1] competing for the same seat, the hostess doesn't run a credit check, and I'm not asked for a multiple of my meal-cost as a deposit.
It would appear to follow that
> then consumers have a better bargaining position
doesn't happen.
And...
> The alternative is not homelessness, starvation, or joblessness
We have homeless folks, we have jobless folks, and while I don't think many people outright starve to death in the U.S., we do have chronic malnourishment.
I'd like to ask you to consider how that evidence from the real world should provide feedback to your economic model of the reality in question.
This is one of my biggest frustrations with econ[2]. People mistake the map for the terrain in every field, but econ seems to positively fetishize doing it.
[1] I have personally witnessed over 100 people at an open house for a single apartment. Amazingly to me, my then-partner and I got it.
[2] Actually, it isn't all of econ - one school, in particular, seems to be highly susceptible to this mistake.
[deleted]
Are you saying that because both parties benefit then neither party can be to blame? Confirming, not sure based on your wording.
If so, that assumes that both parties are going into the trade negotiations on equal footing. I don't think I'm the only one who would argue that's not the case in a great many rentseeker:rentee or owner:employee relationships. Even discarding any social or economic pressures in the current climate, the power of the rentseeker and owner allows them to shape the environment into one that benefits them more (see: lobbying and politics in the USA).
If so, that assumes that both parties are going into the trade negotiations on equal footing. I don't think I'm the only one who would argue that's not the case in a great many rentseeker:rentee or owner:employee relationships. Even discarding any social or economic pressures in the current climate, the power of the rentseeker and owner allows them to shape the environment into one that benefits them more (see: lobbying and politics in the USA).
Are you suggesting that, if we feel we are not benefiting from the current rent market, we can simply stop participating?
In Hawaii lots of people live on the beach, and don't get hassled for it. (Maybe they do get hassled, but anyway it isn't enough to end the practice...) There probably should be some sort of freely available liminal space in other states to serve the same purpose. Actually it seems like some people live under bridges?
300 million people can't do this. By and large, save for very few people, we all have to participate in the housing market. There are also long term, detrimental effects of having a large percentage of the population living on beaches or other designated areas.
This is a very simple statement you've made but introduced the exact issue while also glossing over it.
Trade is voluntary. Free trade is an agreement between two parties. But free trade does not benefit 'both parties' unless you vivisect -for example- the American people into those that actually benefit from free trade and those that do not, largely.
This is borne out by the reality we live in: that income and wealth inequality is increasing and doing so at an increasing rate and capital is accumulating due to public policies both domestic and international in nature that disproportionately favor the rentiers.
The US has a lower rate of individual participation in the economy now than before NAFTA. That's a major failure in my opinion.
Trade is voluntary. Free trade is an agreement between two parties. But free trade does not benefit 'both parties' unless you vivisect -for example- the American people into those that actually benefit from free trade and those that do not, largely.
This is borne out by the reality we live in: that income and wealth inequality is increasing and doing so at an increasing rate and capital is accumulating due to public policies both domestic and international in nature that disproportionately favor the rentiers.
The US has a lower rate of individual participation in the economy now than before NAFTA. That's a major failure in my opinion.
Price gouging. It's not really free trade when options are limited. It's not really free trade when "free will" has been subverted.
The notion of free trade sounds good at an individual level but does it really exist at a societal level? I think it's like libertarianism. It's sounds plausible at the micro level but doesn't scale well.
I think the starting point you seek is itself worthy of criticism.
The notion of free trade sounds good at an individual level but does it really exist at a societal level? I think it's like libertarianism. It's sounds plausible at the micro level but doesn't scale well.
I think the starting point you seek is itself worthy of criticism.
> The notion of free trade sounds good at an individual level but does it really exist at a societal level?
The good news is "society" isn't buying and selling houses, or negotiating rental agreements. Individuals are.
The good news is "society" isn't buying and selling houses, or negotiating rental agreements. Individuals are.
> The good news is "society" isn't buying and selling houses, or negotiating rental agreements. Individuals are.
That's not really true. If you define "society" as "large groups of people", then they absolutely are buying and selling houses, and negotiating rental agreements.
In my hometown, over 50% of single-family houses are owned by major corporations. And some of those corporations are listed and traded, their stock exists in part inside wealthy and upper-middle-class people's 401Ks.
"Society" is absolutely buying up houses, and negotiating rental rates.
That's not really true. If you define "society" as "large groups of people", then they absolutely are buying and selling houses, and negotiating rental agreements.
In my hometown, over 50% of single-family houses are owned by major corporations. And some of those corporations are listed and traded, their stock exists in part inside wealthy and upper-middle-class people's 401Ks.
"Society" is absolutely buying up houses, and negotiating rental rates.
> In my hometown, over 50% of single-family houses are owned by major corporations.
I'm curious as to what town this is, and how many are bank-owned properties that haven't been unloaded yet. This sounds like an unusual situation, considering the places I have lived.
I'm curious as to what town this is, and how many are bank-owned properties that haven't been unloaded yet. This sounds like an unusual situation, considering the places I have lived.
Phoenix, here. If I wanted to move from my grandfathered rental in 85377(VN part of town) to 85020(crack central), I would pay more for the same sqft. My landlord mentioned raising rent back in December, I told him to list it & give me 2 weeks notice. He never received a single call in 30 days. But, yeah, it's "demand" pushing rates up.
From 2013, 25% of acquisitions made by funds:
http://archive.azcentral.com/business/realestate/articles/20...
edit: no shortage of For Sale & empty homes up here, too. Multi-million dollar homes are stagnating on the market for years, and subsequently, plenty are for rent, too.
From 2013, 25% of acquisitions made by funds:
http://archive.azcentral.com/business/realestate/articles/20...
edit: no shortage of For Sale & empty homes up here, too. Multi-million dollar homes are stagnating on the market for years, and subsequently, plenty are for rent, too.
> This sounds like an unusual situation, considering the places I've lived.
That number is slightly higher than average, but the situation isn't uncommon. In fact, it's common enough that the Federal Government itself is doing it too, in a dozen or so major markets (Atlanta, Seattle, Chicago, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, etc)
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/25/governments-fannie-mae-will-b...
> I'm curious as to what town this is,
These are the stats from my small hometown specifically :
http://michiganradio.org/post/winners-and-losers-grand-rapid...
That number is slightly higher than average, but the situation isn't uncommon. In fact, it's common enough that the Federal Government itself is doing it too, in a dozen or so major markets (Atlanta, Seattle, Chicago, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, etc)
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/25/governments-fannie-mae-will-b...
> I'm curious as to what town this is,
These are the stats from my small hometown specifically :
http://michiganradio.org/post/winners-and-losers-grand-rapid...
society is requiring you to participate in this market however. You can't just take a tarp and set up a lean to in large parts of the US or you'll be kicked out, arrested, or even killed
You didn't address any of the points I made. It's like libertarianism. Sounds right at the individual level but it doesn't scale. You also completely ignored price gouging and other factors that distort market forces. You appear to assume all parties have equal bargaining power and pricing power. You are looking at things superficially.
The only thing there is is individuals transacting with each other. "Society", as an independent entity, is a mirage.
And yes. It probably is like libertarianism. I am a libertarian, and I don't take that as an insult.
And yes. It probably is like libertarianism. I am a libertarian, and I don't take that as an insult.
Would you agree that the Nash equilibrium is not identically equal to the global utility optimum? If so, then you almost certainly agree that what is best for an individual actor is not necessarily what is best for Society (all people in a political aggregate) at large.
In plain terms, everyone acting selfishly does not necessarily lead to everyone getting what they need.
In plain terms, everyone acting selfishly does not necessarily lead to everyone getting what they need.
I have sympathy for your argument, but there's a small note of confusion. Namely, libertarian economists know a ton of game theory. In fact, I only got into game theory due to reading econ texts by writers I later found to be libertarian-leaning. Wouldn't it be a bit strange if the prisoner's dilemma really was a knockdown argument against their views? Maybe there's more than meets the eye?
[deleted]
"Society" is the dynamics that emerge when groups of humans form settlements and organize themselves together for various purposes (food, safety, enjoyment, etc).
Unsurprisingly, these dynamics differ from those found in isolated, individual humans.
Unsurprisingly, these dynamics differ from those found in isolated, individual humans.
When it comes to free-trade it doesn't need to benefit both parties, it just needs to benefit the party with the most leverage. The other side will then have to adapt.
How about this?:
Free trade used to be between roughly equal parties. You wanted juicer, someone sold you a juicer.
Today, free trade has evolved into a transaction between you and the rest of humanity where you are expected to yield your information to an entity so that they can use it to better serve you and the rest of the world.
For many scenarios, this symbiosis was a net benefit. Recall Nest and the promise to reduce your electricty bills by 10-15% by harnessing big data.
Over time, Silicon Valley got addicted to the promise and possibility of making you yield data to it so that they could "somehow" help you live a better life.
They tried to extend the idea into areas where it had no business being - a juicer or a coffee maker. And since the average human knows a bad bargain when they see one, they had to sex up the juicer or coffee maker with beautiful design, empty slogans, and beautiful models.
..which is pretty much the author's entire point if you read between the lines.
Free trade used to be between roughly equal parties. You wanted juicer, someone sold you a juicer.
Today, free trade has evolved into a transaction between you and the rest of humanity where you are expected to yield your information to an entity so that they can use it to better serve you and the rest of the world.
For many scenarios, this symbiosis was a net benefit. Recall Nest and the promise to reduce your electricty bills by 10-15% by harnessing big data.
Over time, Silicon Valley got addicted to the promise and possibility of making you yield data to it so that they could "somehow" help you live a better life.
They tried to extend the idea into areas where it had no business being - a juicer or a coffee maker. And since the average human knows a bad bargain when they see one, they had to sex up the juicer or coffee maker with beautiful design, empty slogans, and beautiful models.
..which is pretty much the author's entire point if you read between the lines.
Why am I hearing so much about "late capitalism" suddenly? I'm sure I'd never heard the term five years ago. Now it's in all sorts of articles.
The idea is that we're entering the late stage capitalism phase of our civilization. Like, we went though antiquity and modernity and post modernity. There was a colonial period and a reconstruction. Pre and post ww2.
They're all hard to define and poorly scoped, but there is something to each of the ideas, or people wouldn't talk about them.
Anything I could say to define 'late capitalism' would detract from the point though, because any tech person can find a million nits to pick on any point made about even relatively precise subjects, and late capitalism refers to trends in something as diverse as global society.
Just try and think for yourself, "If we are living through such a thing as late era capitalism, what characteristics of our world are relevant to that label?"
They're all hard to define and poorly scoped, but there is something to each of the ideas, or people wouldn't talk about them.
Anything I could say to define 'late capitalism' would detract from the point though, because any tech person can find a million nits to pick on any point made about even relatively precise subjects, and late capitalism refers to trends in something as diverse as global society.
Just try and think for yourself, "If we are living through such a thing as late era capitalism, what characteristics of our world are relevant to that label?"
For those who are being pushed off their land by the rent-seekers, I offer a ray of light to brighten your day: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9WWzbzevTA
The most desirable, and most physically constrained cities, are mostly coastal. Could something like this work in a place like Vancouver, Seattle, or SF? There is always the threat of bureaucracy or regulations getting in the way, but the incredible pressure of the housing crisis might be enough to encourage open-mindedness on the part of the relevant local leaders.
For the endangered artist community, I could see this working better than it does for someone who works in a specific building. Certainly not a small undertaking, though.
For those who don't like YT links, this is a short professional documentary/interview about a couple who built their home from scratch, on the ocean. Most materials are salvaged, and everything was built by hand. It is beautiful. For a Canadian bureaucrat, the whole thing probably doesn't even compute.
The most desirable, and most physically constrained cities, are mostly coastal. Could something like this work in a place like Vancouver, Seattle, or SF? There is always the threat of bureaucracy or regulations getting in the way, but the incredible pressure of the housing crisis might be enough to encourage open-mindedness on the part of the relevant local leaders.
For the endangered artist community, I could see this working better than it does for someone who works in a specific building. Certainly not a small undertaking, though.
For those who don't like YT links, this is a short professional documentary/interview about a couple who built their home from scratch, on the ocean. Most materials are salvaged, and everything was built by hand. It is beautiful. For a Canadian bureaucrat, the whole thing probably doesn't even compute.
"the three hot trends in Silicon Valley horseshit... An industry that never stops lauding itself for its creativity and innovation has built its own success mythology by endlessly repackaging the same banal functions that have existed for about as long as the Web"
Pretty funny coming from an academic who would gladly make a living pushing standardized testing at the undergraduate level.
Pretty funny coming from an academic who would gladly make a living pushing standardized testing at the undergraduate level.
In what world do you think academics like standardized testing? Every teacher or professor I've ever met loathes the idea of having to "teach to the test". They didn't set the standards, but they're forced to follow them.
My bad. I thought you were making a more general argument about academics. In this case, you're right.
You should have put that in your original post. I made the same mistake as my sibling and thought you were just swiping at academics in general.
Sounds like a non sequitur, though. Standardized testing in academia isn't necessarily a sign of lack of creativity or innovation.
He is a critic of most standardized testing. He wants to figure out how we can do better.
Sounds kind of like ad hominem bro
While rising rents in SF/Bay Area are due to more & richer tech people, overall costs are declining thanks to tech companies. The cost and reliability of taxis is much much better with Uber than it was previously. The cost of many goods that one has access to is lower via Amazon for so many people. A lot of local businesses are probably more profitable working with Google than they were previously with the Yellow Pages.
Yes, there will be spectacular failures, but right now 3 of the 5 most valuable companies in the U.S. did not exist ~21 years ago (Google, Facebook, Amazon), and 1 of the 5 was a tech company which many had written off (Apple).
It's easy to laugh at the failures, but the real entrepreneurs just don't care. I don't think Larry Page or Jeff Bezos minds if you want to laugh at them over Google Knol or the Amazon Fire phone. For their 100 failures, their one big win was with no doubt worth it e.g. AWS or Android.
Yes, there will be spectacular failures, but right now 3 of the 5 most valuable companies in the U.S. did not exist ~21 years ago (Google, Facebook, Amazon), and 1 of the 5 was a tech company which many had written off (Apple).
It's easy to laugh at the failures, but the real entrepreneurs just don't care. I don't think Larry Page or Jeff Bezos minds if you want to laugh at them over Google Knol or the Amazon Fire phone. For their 100 failures, their one big win was with no doubt worth it e.g. AWS or Android.
Android makes almost no profit for google and isn't a 'win'. All it does is protect the search monopoly from competition from Microsoft and Apple.
The irony is that the overwhelming majority of marketers who come up with those nonsense "Doer" posters and the like have never had to stay up all night and "eat coffee" in order to meet deadlines.
I'm reasonably certain that advertising has a pretty big reputation as a stress-driven hellscape, at least in the classic Madison avenue format. Lots of deadlines and all-nighters
The article is a swipe at evil silicon valley corporations who hide their products' lack of value behind fancy advertisements; but are consumers with freedom to choose not responsible for their choices?
The morality of the consumer vs. the morality of the supplier an interesting problem. On one extreme, we have the drug dealer relationship. The supplier is obviously more morally duplicitous, and the consumer is often pitied (at least in liberal, anti-drug war circles). At the opposite side of the spectrum, you have suppliers making entirely ok or even ok things selling them to bad people. Are fertilizer providers to blame for consumers turning their products into bombs? Obviously not (actually, I'm not sure legally, but common sense says no).
In the middle, you have a wide array of relationships. Is Coca-Cola to blame for the obesity epidemic? Are gun companies to blame for suicides or mass shootings? Is Juicero to blame for customers being dumb shits?
I think when you answer different examples, you get a pattern: when a supplier is selling a negative/zero value product but induces demand by playing off human weakness, then they're doing something wrong.
Juicero is playing off human weakness (the wealthy tech nerds' desire to be "hip" and "fit") just like a a fashion company plays off human weakness (by creating unrealistic representations that it goads its customers into trying to reach).
In the middle, you have a wide array of relationships. Is Coca-Cola to blame for the obesity epidemic? Are gun companies to blame for suicides or mass shootings? Is Juicero to blame for customers being dumb shits?
I think when you answer different examples, you get a pattern: when a supplier is selling a negative/zero value product but induces demand by playing off human weakness, then they're doing something wrong.
Juicero is playing off human weakness (the wealthy tech nerds' desire to be "hip" and "fit") just like a a fashion company plays off human weakness (by creating unrealistic representations that it goads its customers into trying to reach).
I wouldn't go so far as to call desire to fit in or display wealth/success a weakness, considering it is a sexual strategy which is basic human nature and continues to be generally successful today. In this sense juicero arguably provides a service, although an obviously subpar one given alternatives.
I'm not sure I follow your fashion industry example. Assuming youre referring to weight, the so called unrealistic representations manufactured by the fashion industry do not cause customers to spend extra money on clothing, since customers simply won't fit into unreasonable sizes. And here, similarly, fashion companies provide a service of status signalling.
In any case, these are both examples of consumers failing to personally choose not to follow the herd. Additionally, corporations do not set standards in a vacuum, consumers create demand and vote with their wallets.
I'm not sure I follow your fashion industry example. Assuming youre referring to weight, the so called unrealistic representations manufactured by the fashion industry do not cause customers to spend extra money on clothing, since customers simply won't fit into unreasonable sizes. And here, similarly, fashion companies provide a service of status signalling.
In any case, these are both examples of consumers failing to personally choose not to follow the herd. Additionally, corporations do not set standards in a vacuum, consumers create demand and vote with their wallets.
I understand the point the author is trying to make, but I do want to point out, that if you lived in another country unlike USA, it would be hard to even come up with a product like the quip or the juicer (however useless you may think it is). You would have funding barriers, you may find it hard to find people who have the engineering skill set to come up with a product that works the way it does etc, or worse you may not even have a local market for your product initially.
Oh no, what a pity.
It's harder to make pointless, bullshit companies that add literally nothing and instead contribute to degrading conditions and pay.
I have zero sympathy for someone not being able to spin up a useless, zero-effort company. Put some effort in and come up with something worthwhile that contributes instead.
It's harder to make pointless, bullshit companies that add literally nothing and instead contribute to degrading conditions and pay.
I have zero sympathy for someone not being able to spin up a useless, zero-effort company. Put some effort in and come up with something worthwhile that contributes instead.
If people had a choice to live in a country where it is hard to start "meaningful" companies vs living in a country where it is so easy to start companies that you can even start stupid companies, I would think most people here will choose #2.
Now regarding degrading conditions and pay, that was not what I was commenting about....
Also, one thing to remember is small 'stupid' companies (like juicer) will be "taken care off" by free market economics. Over a period of years, if it does well, then it is fair game. Else it might go bust. It is unlikely that is not the outcome here.
Now regarding degrading conditions and pay, that was not what I was commenting about....
Also, one thing to remember is small 'stupid' companies (like juicer) will be "taken care off" by free market economics. Over a period of years, if it does well, then it is fair game. Else it might go bust. It is unlikely that is not the outcome here.
> Also, one thing to remember is small 'stupid' companies (like juicer) will be "taken care off" by free market economics.
If I think there's one thing we've learnt from the last several years, it's that the magical free market, doesn't do even half the things it's supposed to do, and really isn't a good solution.
If I think there's one thing we've learnt from the last several years, it's that the magical free market, doesn't do even half the things it's supposed to do, and really isn't a good solution.
I'd like to add that the MTA allows the most manipulative, screaming-at-you ads (depicted in this post). It's the least pleasant part of using the subway in my opinion.
I would say my least favorite part is seeing that empty car and not realizing the reason why it's empty is because of the smell inside until the train's already left the stop.
Yeah, there's way worse things that can happen in the subway than staring at a picture with text.
Sure, but that can happen in any system. The visually loud ads are unique to the MTA.
The least pleasant part of the NYC subway is how over-congested, chronically delayed, and unreliable it is. But yes, the ads are annoying too.
[deleted]
Concerning RentBerry, it's the first I've heard of it and I know nothing about California bylaws, but isn't it illegal to just put the price of rent up in an unrestricted auction?
I sure hope not.
Why? It is in many places, it's very common which is why I asked. Leads to frustration for property owners sure, but it helps balance the market, gives some power to tenants, to enable a decent cost of living.
Ok I looked it up for SF: https://www.sftu.org/rentcontrol/
Indeed, there is a control of only a few percent per year. So how is RentBerry legal?
"If the owner re-rents before the 5-year period is up, the residential property must be offered at the same rent that the former tenant was paying (plus annual allowable increases.)" https://www.sftu.org/are-you-paying-too-much-rent/
Ok I looked it up for SF: https://www.sftu.org/rentcontrol/
Indeed, there is a control of only a few percent per year. So how is RentBerry legal?
"If the owner re-rents before the 5-year period is up, the residential property must be offered at the same rent that the former tenant was paying (plus annual allowable increases.)" https://www.sftu.org/are-you-paying-too-much-rent/
2014, Medium: At last, a way to post blogs on the internet!
God bless you Fredrik deBoer!
My next startup will be RentColosseum. Screw this bidding with money thing, renting an apartment really should be survival of the fittest.
We won't need a cut of the winner's rent (but can probably take it anyway), because we'll televise it and profit on the ads.
Did I miss anything? Opaque, exploitive finance on proprietary weapons for contestants, maybe?
We won't need a cut of the winner's rent (but can probably take it anyway), because we'll televise it and profit on the ads.
Did I miss anything? Opaque, exploitive finance on proprietary weapons for contestants, maybe?
Pivot idea: pay for admittance to a unit or building, and if you can throw the existing tenants out the window, the place is yours.
Then you pay the landlord each month for the right to keep your door locked. If a prospective tenant can outbid your month's rent, man the battle stations.
Then you pay the landlord each month for the right to keep your door locked. If a prospective tenant can outbid your month's rent, man the battle stations.
I can't wait until I hear about a Young Adult novel with this as a primary plot device. I will know where the idea came from.
Oh, or the romance novel in which an otherwise toxic human being impresses a potential partner by managing to outbid everyone else for a 1-bedroom in a decent neighborhood!
If I make the protagonist a vampire I'll probably get a movie deal.
Defenistration as a service comes next obviously.
DAAS is the business model of Apple and Redhat.
But they don't toss things out of windows, they toss Windows out of things
Apartment as Thunderdome? "Two tenants enter, one tenant stays!"
Auctioning the loser's organs.
I'm normally not critical of mod behavior, so I don't make this point lightly:
1. The title was changed from something admittedly sensationalist, to something that is clearly antithetical to the point of the original title. "Trends in tech" completely lacks the tone of the original title. If you don't want to use a title with "horseshit" in it, fine, but change it to something that matches the intention of the author at least. "Trends in tech" could be anything from a VC thinkpiece, to technical language choices in startups, to what the author actually wrote. How do I know if it's worth my time or aligns with my interests if I'm a passing reader?
This title manages to completely neutralize the author's point by robbing it of any interesting lead-in. If a mod did this, it's what I would call disingenuous curation of front page content. It's insidious because while clickbait titles get more attention than they should, and unfairly so, uninteresting titles receive proportionally less attention than they should.
2. This post has 92 points in less than an hour and is just barely on the front page (as of this writing). It will probably slip off imminently. The top post has less than 80 points and is over an hour old. Why? I understand there are algorithm nuances, but that utterly lacks transparency.
I make these points because it raises an interesting juxtaposition between what the community wants and what is beneficial to Y Combinator. Some of the article could be interpreted as attacking Y Combinator's business model which provides a potential incentive for what I noted above. But that does not make it illegitimate given that it satisfies "intellectual curiosity" according to HN guidelines and is very well-upvoted. It appears suspicious to me that it is not higher up, and this is from someone who doesn't normally engage in this sort of criticism.
1. The title was changed from something admittedly sensationalist, to something that is clearly antithetical to the point of the original title. "Trends in tech" completely lacks the tone of the original title. If you don't want to use a title with "horseshit" in it, fine, but change it to something that matches the intention of the author at least. "Trends in tech" could be anything from a VC thinkpiece, to technical language choices in startups, to what the author actually wrote. How do I know if it's worth my time or aligns with my interests if I'm a passing reader?
This title manages to completely neutralize the author's point by robbing it of any interesting lead-in. If a mod did this, it's what I would call disingenuous curation of front page content. It's insidious because while clickbait titles get more attention than they should, and unfairly so, uninteresting titles receive proportionally less attention than they should.
2. This post has 92 points in less than an hour and is just barely on the front page (as of this writing). It will probably slip off imminently. The top post has less than 80 points and is over an hour old. Why? I understand there are algorithm nuances, but that utterly lacks transparency.
I make these points because it raises an interesting juxtaposition between what the community wants and what is beneficial to Y Combinator. Some of the article could be interpreted as attacking Y Combinator's business model which provides a potential incentive for what I noted above. But that does not make it illegitimate given that it satisfies "intellectual curiosity" according to HN guidelines and is very well-upvoted. It appears suspicious to me that it is not higher up, and this is from someone who doesn't normally engage in this sort of criticism.
I can't find much to disagree with here, so have updated the title to add "A critique", removed the moderation penalty from it, and rolled back the clock on the story so it has more time on the front page.
If I have time, I'll come back and add a fuller explanation of what happened, but the bottom line is: HN moderation is driven by trying to keep the community happy while staying within the mandate of the site (which is intellectual curiosity and civil, substantive discussion). That's the problem we're trying to solve, not anything directly to do with YC's business. A happy HN is worth more to YC than any other kind of HN, so it would be dumb to optimize for anything else.
I'm marking this subthread offtopic now, which makes it fall to the bottom of the thread, because otherwise the meta conversation will dominate the discussion rather than the points raised by the article.
If I have time, I'll come back and add a fuller explanation of what happened, but the bottom line is: HN moderation is driven by trying to keep the community happy while staying within the mandate of the site (which is intellectual curiosity and civil, substantive discussion). That's the problem we're trying to solve, not anything directly to do with YC's business. A happy HN is worth more to YC than any other kind of HN, so it would be dumb to optimize for anything else.
I'm marking this subthread offtopic now, which makes it fall to the bottom of the thread, because otherwise the meta conversation will dominate the discussion rather than the points raised by the article.
I appreciate the transparency, dang. Thanks for coming out to respond. What's more, I find that title agreeable without veering off in either direction.
Cheers!
Cheers!
Thanks, Dang. As someone who was a bit critical as well, I greatly appreciate the background on how you see your role.
Oh, and, you know. Also that little detail about you actually doing all the work. Similar the cliche about the sysadmin[1], that you don't get enough credit demonstrates how well you do it, because situations like this are so rare.
[1] That being: when systems are running poorly, everyone wonders why they employ such an incompetent sysadmin. When systems are running well, everyone wonders why they waste money on a sysadmin.
Oh, and, you know. Also that little detail about you actually doing all the work. Similar the cliche about the sysadmin[1], that you don't get enough credit demonstrates how well you do it, because situations like this are so rare.
[1] That being: when systems are running poorly, everyone wonders why they employ such an incompetent sysadmin. When systems are running well, everyone wonders why they waste money on a sysadmin.
To provide some additional background: The title was initially "Silicon Valley: Making Life Worse for Regular People".
It's certainly sensationalist from the point of view that it's something a lot of HN readers who work around SV probably don't want to think that much about, but I thought that's why it maybe deserves some attention. It's also consistent with the conclusion in the content of TFA:
"That’s it. That’s all they are. That’s all they do. They are the final logic of late capitalism, the engine of human creativity applied to the essential work of making life worse for regular people."
It's certainly sensationalist from the point of view that it's something a lot of HN readers who work around SV probably don't want to think that much about, but I thought that's why it maybe deserves some attention. It's also consistent with the conclusion in the content of TFA:
"That’s it. That’s all they are. That’s all they do. They are the final logic of late capitalism, the engine of human creativity applied to the essential work of making life worse for regular people."
Thanks for this. You've articulated how I've felt subconsciously about HN for a while now.
HN used to be a place where I could be stimulated intellectually. Today it no longer seems to give me that.
Where can I go now to get better content? Or should I give up on aggregation altogether?
HN used to be a place where I could be stimulated intellectually. Today it no longer seems to give me that.
Where can I go now to get better content? Or should I give up on aggregation altogether?
Every site seems to have a life cycle. I find that I prefer the early stages, before things settle down in to the predictable debating club between stable poles of opinion that define the acceptable range of discourse there. That stage can last a long time, but it doesn't last forever.
This doesn't work for everyone (which is probably why it still works at all), but, at least for technical discussion, mailing lists are where I have the bulk of my quality online interaction. I've found fewer good public lists for wider intellectual discussion, but they're out there, too.
The difference is that they tend to range from somewhat to very topically silo'ed. Well, and they're email, so the cool kids don't want to play. (Again, I think that's partly why it works.)
This doesn't work for everyone (which is probably why it still works at all), but, at least for technical discussion, mailing lists are where I have the bulk of my quality online interaction. I've found fewer good public lists for wider intellectual discussion, but they're out there, too.
The difference is that they tend to range from somewhat to very topically silo'ed. Well, and they're email, so the cool kids don't want to play. (Again, I think that's partly why it works.)
I'll be honest: I don't really like how you're approaching this. It feels like a higher class of conspiracy theorizing I often see on the web in its construction, so I'll run through my issues point by point.
1 - The original title was sensationalist (and so is the article, really), and changing titles to be more useful to the average HN reader/removing clickbait is something that happens fairly often here. I don't expect this process to be perfect, and I regularly see posts with somewhat useless or one-word titles. It happens. I have yet to see a post from Dang I'd consider unreasonable (in several years of reading HN) so I'm inclined to have some faith in the mod team here.
Further, I also think you have a lack of faith in the readership here - title quality is less important on HN than on any other similar site I've used (though I favor accuracy and find the current policies regarding them reasonable).
2 - Generally this means some users are flagging the article. I've flagged articles on occasion before, and it can cause an instant drop of several places on the front page. This regularly happens for sensational or political articles - even things verging on political I find of interest and would like to see discussed more. I chalk it up to the nature of the community.
As for this going against YC interests or business model - I don't really see it. This isn't even a good attack on YC, it's an attack on rent-seeking and/or the work culture of startups. YC is an effort to make startup funding more accessible, equitable, useful, and wide-ranging (or at least, that's how it looks to me from the outside). Heck, they have RFSs that go in direct opposition to the kind of startups talked about in the article (and their interest in funding these kinds of things + moonshots are increasing, not decreasing).
In short - I think you're pretty far off here, but you're free to read into it what you want.
1 - The original title was sensationalist (and so is the article, really), and changing titles to be more useful to the average HN reader/removing clickbait is something that happens fairly often here. I don't expect this process to be perfect, and I regularly see posts with somewhat useless or one-word titles. It happens. I have yet to see a post from Dang I'd consider unreasonable (in several years of reading HN) so I'm inclined to have some faith in the mod team here.
Further, I also think you have a lack of faith in the readership here - title quality is less important on HN than on any other similar site I've used (though I favor accuracy and find the current policies regarding them reasonable).
2 - Generally this means some users are flagging the article. I've flagged articles on occasion before, and it can cause an instant drop of several places on the front page. This regularly happens for sensational or political articles - even things verging on political I find of interest and would like to see discussed more. I chalk it up to the nature of the community.
As for this going against YC interests or business model - I don't really see it. This isn't even a good attack on YC, it's an attack on rent-seeking and/or the work culture of startups. YC is an effort to make startup funding more accessible, equitable, useful, and wide-ranging (or at least, that's how it looks to me from the outside). Heck, they have RFSs that go in direct opposition to the kind of startups talked about in the article (and their interest in funding these kinds of things + moonshots are increasing, not decreasing).
In short - I think you're pretty far off here, but you're free to read into it what you want.
Sorry you got downvoted... I thought you made some good points, and since we're being introspective that's one of the practices I don't enjoy: people downvoting things they don't agree with instead of things that detract from the conversation. I feel like you made some thoughtful points that I don't really agree with but add to the discussion.
As a corollary to your point: It's possible that the mods changed it _because_ it was getting flagged as titled originally and they _wanted_ more people to see it.
As a corollary to your point: It's possible that the mods changed it _because_ it was getting flagged as titled originally and they _wanted_ more people to see it.
I think you make some good points, and I'll be the first to admit that I do not know if there is censorship happening here. I hope there isn't! If you look through my post history, you'll see that I typically talk about either security or finance. I try to avoid the topic of censorship on HN, as it's not an axe of mine to grind.
I personally respect dang a lot, and I've spoken with him via email a few times. I do not believe censorship happens in an intentional, systematic way. Really, I'm uncomfortable about the idea that even if it's unlikely, we just don't know.
I personally respect dang a lot, and I've spoken with him via email a few times. I do not believe censorship happens in an intentional, systematic way. Really, I'm uncomfortable about the idea that even if it's unlikely, we just don't know.
I do not believe censorship happens in an intentional, systematic way.
You probably shouldn't use the loaded and much-abused word 'censorship' for that sort of thing. Neither curation/moderation nor unintentional bias are 'censorship'.
You probably shouldn't use the loaded and much-abused word 'censorship' for that sort of thing. Neither curation/moderation nor unintentional bias are 'censorship'.
Now that I realize the original title was "Silicon Valley: Making Life Worse for Regular People", this is a clear cut case of censorship.
I would hope that we're not at 1984 level yet, so something like a title change won't make people start engaging in SV doublethink, but you never know.
I would hope that we're not at 1984 level yet, so something like a title change won't make people start engaging in SV doublethink, but you never know.
Agree - I saw it with the title that conveyed actual semantic content, which is why I read it.
So perhaps we'll need to acknowledge this sort of editorial control a kind of signaling - a meaningless, anodyne headline means "article YC doesn't like".
So perhaps we'll need to acknowledge this sort of editorial control a kind of signaling - a meaningless, anodyne headline means "article YC doesn't like".
[deleted]
[deleted]
> And yes. It probably is like libertarianism. I am a libertarian, and I don't take that as an insult.
Yes, that explains the economic illiteracy. What you describe as individuals interacting with each other is really organizations interacting with individuals, or 2 entities interacting with each other with big power differentials in a market with low elasticity.
If you ever decide to learn economics past 101, look into what those terms mean and what might happen in those markets.
Yes, that explains the economic illiteracy. What you describe as individuals interacting with each other is really organizations interacting with individuals, or 2 entities interacting with each other with big power differentials in a market with low elasticity.
If you ever decide to learn economics past 101, look into what those terms mean and what might happen in those markets.
Personal swipes are not welcome in comments here. We've warned you before, so if you want to continue commenting here, it's time to fix this.
That includes avoiding snark tropes like "you do realize, right?" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14213226)
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14212866 and marked it off-topic.
That includes avoiding snark tropes like "you do realize, right?" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14213226)
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14212866 and marked it off-topic.
Yes, all these people know nothing about economics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Libertarian_economist...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Libertarian_economist...
Swindling shouldn't be a crime? Doing a con shouldn't be a crime?
Society is a mirage? It clearly isn't as you are living in one and benefitting from it. You may not want it to exist but clearly societies do exist. It's obvious that libertarianism doesn't work at scale. Especially in a world with so mmany people. Societies can be a failure too but there are plenty of examples of success. There no examples of libertarian success at scale. Once density reaches a critical mass libertarianism fails.
Clearly you don't care or haven't thought about society's role in moderating exploitation and inequality in power.
Society is a mirage? It clearly isn't as you are living in one and benefitting from it. You may not want it to exist but clearly societies do exist. It's obvious that libertarianism doesn't work at scale. Especially in a world with so mmany people. Societies can be a failure too but there are plenty of examples of success. There no examples of libertarian success at scale. Once density reaches a critical mass libertarianism fails.
Clearly you don't care or haven't thought about society's role in moderating exploitation and inequality in power.
> Clearly you don't care or haven't thought
That's unduly personal. Users here aren't allowed to address each other that way, first because it's uncivil, and second because arguments get stronger when such bits are edited out.
We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14212866 and marked it off-topic.
That's unduly personal. Users here aren't allowed to address each other that way, first because it's uncivil, and second because arguments get stronger when such bits are edited out.
We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14212866 and marked it off-topic.
I don't think it was personal. I don't have a history of making personal attacks. It's clear that society in the form of government has a role in moderating exploitation. Someone who doesn't believe society should exist either doesn't care about moderating exploitation or hasn't thought about it.
Do you know jstanley personally? Given sonne other comments that I've seen that have not been flagged I begin to suspect that perhaps some bias is at play with regard to your decision.
I'm not suggesting that my comment should be restored. Overall it doesn't matter.
Do you know jstanley personally? Given sonne other comments that I've seen that have not been flagged I begin to suspect that perhaps some bias is at play with regard to your decision.
I'm not suggesting that my comment should be restored. Overall it doesn't matter.
Don't you wake up in the morning, feeling dead inside, and look in the mirror, wondering whether you ever were attractive in any way, whether you ever had something unique and interesting to contribute to society, whether you really are valued by your boss, whether your SO is attracted to you or to your bank account, whether the point of life is at all related to what you've done with your life so far?
This article isn't for you. It's for people who answer my questions with "I have always been ugly, I have nothing of value to offer society, I don't understand why I'm still employed, she left two years ago and took my heart, and maybe nothing I've ever done in life is good."
This article isn't for you. It's for people who answer my questions with "I have always been ugly, I have nothing of value to offer society, I don't understand why I'm still employed, she left two years ago and took my heart, and maybe nothing I've ever done in life is good."
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14214782 and marked it off-topic.
[deleted]
I have no idea what this comment is supposed to mean. The contentless crap posted isn't for people who are mildly depressed, it's for people who are morbidly depressed?
You forgot the big guns: Google and Facebook, who literally exploit small publishers and individual content creators. They are killing journalism and content creation, and all for the ever escalating profit.
(I run a med tech website that reports on medical technologies for doctors and med professionals. I am an MD. We are publishing every day since 2004. News, interviews and exclusive reports. We have a half a million page views a month from professional readership, and Google pays us pennies for Adsense. $60/day? WTF!)
(I run a med tech website that reports on medical technologies for doctors and med professionals. I am an MD. We are publishing every day since 2004. News, interviews and exclusive reports. We have a half a million page views a month from professional readership, and Google pays us pennies for Adsense. $60/day? WTF!)
Once upon a time, an executive said “Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know which half.” It turns out that once you can measure very closely, it's often much more than half.
In the space of a decade the share of the UK advertising market going to UK regional and national newspapers has declined from nearly a half to little more than 10 per cent.
Money which had been spent on journalists holding those in power to account, particularly at a local level, has been transferred to two US-owned digital platforms which exist purely to exploit content rather than create it.
Yup. When you can measure how useful marketing spend is, it gets redirected in more optimal ways for the goals of those with the marketing budgets.
It's of course completely possible that I'm totally wrong in every way, but I'm under the impression that the primary goals of those with marketing budgets do not generally include supporting journalists holding those in power to account.
It's of course completely possible that I'm totally wrong in every way, but I'm under the impression that the primary goals of those with marketing budgets do not generally include supporting journalists holding those in power to account.
> Our society is a hellish wasteland and I am dying inside.
Settle down there, pampered white guy living in new york city.
Settle down there, pampered white guy living in new york city.
We need to push the reset button on Capitalism. The government of each country should repossess all the assets and money within that country and redistribute them to everyone within that country based purely on each person's age (so older people would get more and it won't affect their ability to retire).
The problem is that capitalism has shown every ounce as much capacity to funnel wealth from the impoverished to the elite as a command economy, while enjoying a better public image due to the greater difficulty of pinning any level of culpability on systemic flaws. We need a system that actually prevents exploitation of the many for the benefit of the few, regardless of what such an economy actually looks like.
Capitalism IMHO isn't the problem, the problem is misregulation--either too much regulation, not enough, or regulation in the wrong places.
Capitalism works great as long as certain assumptions are met--things like adequate competition, rational, informed decision making, and so forth. Regulation exists more or less because those assumptions are unrealistic. If you have regulations that target those things appropriately, things are fine; otherwise, all hell breaks loose.
The US is currently screwed because of meaningless discussions over whether or not regulation is good or bad in general, rather than how those regulations should take place and what they should be. In some cases, more regulation might be good (net neutrality); in other cases maybe less regulation would be better (health provider licensing). In some cases the need for regulation depends on other things, like competition (net neutrality would be unnecessary if every market had 10 ISPs to choose from).
It seems like the US is perseverating over some political debate from the 1970s that is no longer relevant. We're being held hostage by a subgroup of baby boomers who are stuck in the prime of their young adulthood and don't realise the rest of civilization has moved on to new problems.
In the end, problems with that seem to me to be related to how the political system is set up, rather than capitalism per se. Things like the electoral college, winner-takes-all voting systems, laws about campaign financing, and so forth and so on.
I've grown so concerned about the state of society that I'm starting to think something like socialism might be the the best of a bunch of bad solutions, but I'd prefer something that targets the problems at the source, as far as I see them.
Capitalism works great as long as certain assumptions are met--things like adequate competition, rational, informed decision making, and so forth. Regulation exists more or less because those assumptions are unrealistic. If you have regulations that target those things appropriately, things are fine; otherwise, all hell breaks loose.
The US is currently screwed because of meaningless discussions over whether or not regulation is good or bad in general, rather than how those regulations should take place and what they should be. In some cases, more regulation might be good (net neutrality); in other cases maybe less regulation would be better (health provider licensing). In some cases the need for regulation depends on other things, like competition (net neutrality would be unnecessary if every market had 10 ISPs to choose from).
It seems like the US is perseverating over some political debate from the 1970s that is no longer relevant. We're being held hostage by a subgroup of baby boomers who are stuck in the prime of their young adulthood and don't realise the rest of civilization has moved on to new problems.
In the end, problems with that seem to me to be related to how the political system is set up, rather than capitalism per se. Things like the electoral college, winner-takes-all voting systems, laws about campaign financing, and so forth and so on.
I've grown so concerned about the state of society that I'm starting to think something like socialism might be the the best of a bunch of bad solutions, but I'd prefer something that targets the problems at the source, as far as I see them.
I must admit, I liked _jal's colosseum idea better.
Lets call it a cultural revolution or something like that.
Edit: Or the rise of the glorious proletariat.
Edit: Or the rise of the glorious proletariat.
[deleted]
in my book, people like you are very dangerous. I fear people of your ideals far more than I fear terrorism or anything of that sort.
Let that sink in for a while!
Let that sink in for a while!
I think it would shake things up and it would be fun for everyone.
Capitalism as it is today is like a Monopoly game where all the properties have already been bought up and new players are forced to 'play' anyway (purely for the gratification of those who are already winning); it hasn't been fun for a very long time. We need to start a fresh game to make things interesting.
I think that things would be better if everyone saw life as a game rather than a race to the finish line.
Capitalism as it is today is like a Monopoly game where all the properties have already been bought up and new players are forced to 'play' anyway (purely for the gratification of those who are already winning); it hasn't been fun for a very long time. We need to start a fresh game to make things interesting.
I think that things would be better if everyone saw life as a game rather than a race to the finish line.
> I think that things would be better if everyone saw life as a game rather than a race to the finish line.
Does it matter what history thinks?
Does it matter what history thinks?
The GP's comment reads like an illustration of an extreme position that may be used to shine light on another extreme position. It may not be an accurate reflection of the person's ideals.
I'm too late to save most of you (or myself), but for the rest: this is a contentless rant. Don't waste your time.
So, let me get it right: this attack focuses on two vanity products that people buy from their free will to spend money on bullshit and two 'marketplaces' that nobody is forcing you to use?
The author makes a boring mistake of taking people for irresponsible, stupid children that should be protected from making bad choices. Thanks, no. I've bought a lot of bullshit products in my lifetime, paid for a lot of bullshit subscriptions, and I'm happy to have the freedom to have made all this stupid mistakes, and a lot more too, that taken not just my money.
The author makes a boring mistake of taking people for irresponsible, stupid children that should be protected from making bad choices. Thanks, no. I've bought a lot of bullshit products in my lifetime, paid for a lot of bullshit subscriptions, and I'm happy to have the freedom to have made all this stupid mistakes, and a lot more too, that taken not just my money.
I don't think that's what the author is saying. If anything, I think the point is that the "revolutionary" nature of most hip companies (not necessarily from SV) is really not revolutionary at all. Cutting edge progress in tech doesn't happen nearly as much as the general public perceives, but they believe it is because the slick marketing, subscription service for mundane products, adding an LCD touch screen to an existing product feels like technological progress, but really isn't. The few real leaps in technology that actually are unique and applicable outside of selling some product or service aren't visible to the end user.
When Netflix caught on everyone thought "wow, technology!" Only some of us in the tech world realize that the idea of streaming movies and TV to your house isn't the amazing breakthrough they made -- it's the infrastructure behind making it work, and the layperson doesn't give a shit about that.
When Netflix caught on everyone thought "wow, technology!" Only some of us in the tech world realize that the idea of streaming movies and TV to your house isn't the amazing breakthrough they made -- it's the infrastructure behind making it work, and the layperson doesn't give a shit about that.
Dollar Shave Club, apparently, delivers Dorco razor blades once a month. The exact same ones you can buy straight from Dorco for a fraction of the price, or if you prefer, Amazon. Razor blades are so small that several months worth can easily fit in even a dorm room. The CEO apparently believes that he's adding value from the subscription model.
>[Dollar Shave CEO Michael] Dubin said his service offers greater "convenience." "Are there similar razors out there? Sure. But our goal is to create value." I pointed out that I can get the Dorco razors delivered conveniently to my front door, too. "Not once a month," he said... Bottom line, if people want to buy in bulk, there's a bazillion other places on the web to do that. Dollar Shave Club offers value beyond just the price of blades & convenience.(1)
What does HN think about this? Would you pay a markup for the "convenience" of a subscription? Is this a real thing people find value in?
(Personally I find 'create value' to be a suspect phrase in this context. I also, personally, find subscriptions to be inconvenient 99% of the time)
(1) http://lifehacker.com/5903771/forget-dollar-shave-clubbuy-th...