In this week's three readings from Graham's Hackers & Painters, he discusses the success of startups, the success of his own startup, the idea of getting rich, and how income inequality is justified. I found lots of his points in these interesting, agreed with some, and thought many deserved more discussion. He talks about startups as one of the best ways to make money, how you have to have a good idea and care a lot about it, and how it is morally permissible to increase the income inequality. As students entering the working world, and potentially creating or joining startups, these are crucial topics to be talking about.
I have definitely found the idea of having a startup attractive, and I love reading or hearing about successful startup stories. I understand this is a risky endeavor though, and that you must have a very unique idea, ideally in an untouched market or at least in a space where there is a need for your idea. Graham talks about how, "Microsoft deliberately built their business in IBM's blind spot", and then goes on to say, "You may not believe it, but I promise you, Microsoft is scared of you... Bill is, because he was you once, back in 1975, the last time a new way of delivering software appeared". While I don't believe that Microsoft is scared of me, I do understand what he is saying about the power of new startups and a new idea. I wish I knew what the next big thing would be and I would jump on it, but sadly I do not at the moment.
Which brings me to another one of his interesting points of how "when people care enough about something to do it well, those who do it tend to be far better than everyone else". I agreed with this and thought he was going more into talking about how it is important to have passion and love for your work in order to do it well. Instead he then used this statement to share a sentiment that we should view making money as a specialized skill, and not complain when a few people make more money than the rest because they care enough to do it well, and thus do it better than everyone else well. I am not sure I agree with this statement, but I think it is more important to discuss his follow up point about how, similarly, it should be okay for there to be great variations in income, and that great variations in income mean there are less technological gaps.
Graham argues that as technology increases, the income gap increases, but that is okay because "it seems to decrease most other gaps". Here he is referring to how the difference between the type of technologies people have is not directly related to their monetary wealth. Phones, computers, electronics of all types are very powerful technologies today and more affordable than other new technologies have been in the past. I think there is still a huge issue in the gap that gets created in material posession of technology, especially as it becomes more disadvantageous to not have it (as almost everything moves online, not having access to a phone or computer or WiFi drastically inhibits daily tasks). I think the bigger gap though is and will continue to be in the knowledge aspect and the huge differences between having the technology and understanding the technology. Graham discusses how "ordinary users shouldn't even know the words 'operating system'", which I think works against him in his argument that technology decreases all gaps except income. There is and will continue to be a big gap based on knowledge-- the next big thing will no doubt leverage that.
Comments