At Spruce, our mission is to build relationships and technology that empower local businesses to serve multifamily residents. From full housekeeping to a quick tidy up or a dog walk for your furry friend, Spruce is available to residents on-demand. We help local businesses build economies of scale in their operations and tech-enable their business so they can compete.
We will be launching in over a dozen markets this year with 3-4x revenue growth.
Join us as we build our next-gen platform and scale from a handful of regional markets to a national rollout. We're using K8s, Serverless, Docker, Node, and Python on the back end with Typescript/React on the front end.
Although this sounds like heaven and from your perspective as an employee it makes sense.
But the system you built doesn't necessarily achieve the goals you want. If everyone gets the same dividend it becomes a tragedy of the commons since an individual player can do the minimum while profiting off other players actions. Even if its varied in dividend for example one person gets 10% while another gets 40%, this still applies as a player with the strategy of being mediocre will still get benefits of the hard work of all other players while minimizing the amount of work he has to do.
Not only that, businesses are meant to make money if the people who start the business is giving out half their money away this system better make 2x the revenue every single quarter or why would they do it.
Well, I don't expect this is a simple perfect system. It isn't new. I just think it might be better than what most places have currently.
US business has a history of "stock options" and "yearly bonuses". So this isn't new. (I haven't seen it here in Australia as a common thing.)
> If everyone gets the same dividend it becomes a tragedy > of the commons since an individual player can do the
> minimum while profiting off other players actions.
They still don't get the same salary as you. Unless they do in which case, no real change.
Alternately, if the company is making megabucks to the point where salary becomes insignificant, then I am ok with others being better off too, even the dead weight.
Also, you could argue that with everyone in the company wanting a bigger share, this puts pressure to remove the dead weight. 1 less employee means a bigger share for me. 1 more productive person(as opposed to dead weight) means more for me.
> Not only that, businesses are meant to make money if
> the people who start the business is giving out half
> their money away this system better make 2x the revenue > every single quarter or why would they do it.
This doesn't change the idea of businesses making money. Just who they should be making it for. It doesn't force a bonus every year. It just says that if rentseeking investors get dividends, employees do too.
Do we want a society whereby rich people can buy shares and then seek rent forever, using that rent to buy more shares etc.
Or where the people who do the work, get the rewards?
I understand that floating publicly is used to draw large sums of money for business to do great things. But it is also used as a forever debt, to pay shareholders forevermore for doing nothing more. Under this scheme, those investors would do their sums differently, obviously and it may well come down to the business getting "less for their float action".
But I like the idea of trying not to trample salaried employees to make others rich.(Many startups do in fact operate on stock option basis. I'd just argue the stock options should be equal value, from the CEO to the cleaner.)
Honestly, I'd prefer more than 50% go to employees - I hate "rentseeking" - but lets not go crazy.
Low prices attract customers that will demand more features and make more complaints to you then any other demographic. In SaaS higher priced customers are typically more accommodating and in addition you get more resources to meet their demands.
Somehow there's something psychological that makes you appreciate a product less when you paid 10$ vs 1000$.
Does Libertarian idea of a penal system not rely on the idea of discipline? I'm curious as the western world has moved on from the previous system where a crime was considered a personal offence to the sovereign. In which case, criminals were displayed in public and tortured. To a system where criminals are to be reformed and disciplined into a normalized individual. An eye for an eye seems to be a regression back to the systems before we had a state and where the penal institution was no longer a extension of politics.
At best, describing the (common) Libertarian approach to justice as "an eye for an eye" is over simplified to the point of absurdity. For example, the vast majority of Libertarians are opposed to State sanctioned executions for crimes, even in the case of murder or a crime where financial restitution isn't obviously applicable. Of course there are debates in Libertarian circles about exactly what the nature of restitution should be in cases like that.
Are they against capital punishment? That's different from rejecting disciplinary and penal institutions as a whole. Is there a reason why restitution is considered the only mechanism for punishment? How do Libertarians disagree with the idea that a penal institution can be a source of social reform as well as political stability?
It's funny as a previous dev that worked with Magento, they said that Shopify did not pose any threat to their business. But I think it's getting clear now that Magneto/Adobe's positioning in the market (enterprise/large-ish medium businesses) is still a good niche but seems like their losing a lot of the SMB customers that made the Magento community what it was.
Having it be a physical key, no matter what, can screw with trying to debug key chords in an app.
And Xcode doesn't use a function key to pause, since that would also interfere with any apps that use function keys. The default keyboard shortcut for pausing in Xcode is ⌃⌘Y, and I think you have to bring Xcode to the foreground for that to work anyway.
I don't believe this is unique in China's history. Their economic power was certainly world class in previous times. They were a manufacturing powerhouse and held monopoly over many goods in a global trade network. Not only that, China had more power projection in the past. They had direct influence in current day Afghanistan and Central Asia until they lost at the battle of Talas River. As well as having tributary states in Japan and Korea. Currently, the US and allies surrounds China in such a way that they don't have the same influence.
Sounds like what Nathaniel Fick has been saying about cyber warfare should also have a degree of proportionality. Mostly, due to the fact that security favors the attacker, deterrence should be based on fear of retaliation vs. a perfect virtual environment.
At Spruce, our mission is to build relationships and technology that empower local businesses to serve multifamily residents. From full housekeeping to a quick tidy up or a dog walk for your furry friend, Spruce is available to residents on-demand. We help local businesses build economies of scale in their operations and tech-enable their business so they can compete.
We will be launching in over a dozen markets this year with 3-4x revenue growth.
Join us as we build our next-gen platform and scale from a handful of regional markets to a national rollout. We're using K8s, Serverless, Docker, Node, and Python on the back end with Typescript/React on the front end.
We're currently hiring for:
Senior Software Engineer, Platform - https://jobs.lever.co/getspruce/c9b1b610-9d40-49d0-bb0c-ae4e...
Senior Product Manager, API/Integrations - https://jobs.lever.co/getspruce/e6024ef0-441b-4e5c-bdee-a7d0...
Senior Business Analyst - https://jobs.lever.co/getspruce/cdad7b59-3f01-48c6-8007-3bed...