Reading Hacker News, I get the impression that tech startups are the only sector of our capitalist economy that has transcended the profit motive and is apparently serving a higher cause.
I love this, but at the same time I have to be wary.
I'm torn between thinking of Hacker News as benevolent or delusional and self-righteous.
I get the benevolent vibes when I see comments like golergka's. I get the delusional, self-righteous vibes when I see founders and VCs comparing themselves to JP Morgan and JD Rockefeller, saying "Hey! Look! I'm just as important as those guys!" "Silicon Valley is important!"
That said, Silicon Valley may very well be an important part of history. But the self-centeredness makes me wary.
Silicon Valley is most definitely an important part of history, regardless what Hacker News and its ilk do. It is named after the primary material input of its name sake first innovation, the integrated circuit. Robert Noyce, the "Mayor or Silicon Valley", Robert Moore, and the rest of the "Traitorous Eight" founded Fairchild Semiconductor and then these two went on to found Intel, a unicorn among unicorns. They accomplished all this by challenging many business norms including "not being company men" and selling their product at a loss until volume was up enough to turn a profit. They didn't just spin off companies, they are the ones that transformed the orchards into the Silicon Valley you take for granted today. They and their progeny laid the social (even the use of venture capital!) and technological foundation that is taken for granted today. Many people I ask have no clue who Robert Noyce is, and know Moore only for Moore's Law. It's like being a publicist and not knowing who Guttenberg is. It's embarrassing really. Silicon valley is already a part of history. I know this and I am young, not someone of an older generation that lived any of this. It's all so rivht there in front of your face, it's hard not to know this stuff. Hacker News, many threads show an ignorance of a lot of this stuff, and I'm just about over it all.
I don't see golergka's comment as falling into some sort of SV "VC-istan" delusional thinking. Joining a small, expanding company is an excellent way to build experience and career growth. It's just in SV we call those small businesses "startups" and accord them some sort of inherent moral superiority.
I have a different reaction. I think the idea that you shouldn't be in it solely for the money is a way to protect against the emotional costs of near-certain failure. If money is your only goal, then failure will crush you. If you can point to all the non-monetary things you gained, then you came out on top no matter how the business itself ends.
Yeah, I think there's one thing the startup world does offer: more freedom+respect than other places. (Above a certain income.) It's horrific, full of lies and doesn't let everyone in. And that "freedom" is often interpreted as harassment.
But. There's a reason why certain people choose it. You can be less of a cog.
In the magazine industry, those are the only "jobs" at all. There are very few paying jobs (and those that do pay a non-livable wage) so you have people with degrees and a year plus experience still working for nothing (or next to nothing).
Have you read the theory? Salary is not even a motivational factor. Salary is among the hygiene factors, that (quoting wikipedia) do not give positive satisfaction or lead to higher motivation, though dissatisfaction results from their absence.
This seems to be a theory based on the assumption that the person(s) are already having more than their base needs met: (decent housing, food, entertainment, retirement). Salary is one hell of a motivator if you're struggling to meet these things. It's all good and academic but antithetical to why a good portion of people obtain higher education.
It is just an academic theory, not holy gospel (with a long "Validity and criticisms" section in Wikipedia).
I think salary IS a motivational factor in real life, as for many humans it is a yardstick of superiority compared to other humans (whether it is right or wrong is another matter).
Its more than just a yardstick for comparison. I know I want to be able to buy the things I want (whether that be going out to dinner more often, buying a new car at 5 years instead of 10, etc). If my salary isn't enough to do those things without major sacrifices elsewhere, then its at least as important a motivator to me as other things.
I can only imagine a world without monetary payment, in some form, for the extremes of far too little and more than enough.
Thinking about the brighter side of things I suppose that in the more than enough side of things you would be paid with happiness. That to be wealthy would be to have something you enjoy doing all of the time. Success however, would be measured in a currency that is more difficult to track, respect.
Have you ever asked someone if they would still be working at their job if they weren't getting paid? Or even the weaker version, if they didn't need the money?
I have asked many people this and only two people have said yes to this. One was someone who already sold his startup so probably didn't have to work ever again. The other was someone who could have retired but he was afraid if he shut down his company his employees would struggle to find new jobs.
