For the record, this was written in 1990, when low-cost startups like web sites were pretty difficult to conceptualize. Back then, there was very little you could do, outside of generic consulting, that didn't have a huge bootstrapping cost, making credit ratings much more important as you had to get a loan or an investment to get anything done. The internet has changed much of that now.
Exactly. Most of the respondents to this thread don't seem to realize that we occupy a very unusual and richly privileged period of history - or for that matter, a very privileged position by dint of being fortunate enough to work in an industry that does allow it's workers a very high degree of autonomy if they choose that for themselves. Even then, it's still very hard and risky work.
The question is why do we currently occupy this very rich and priveleged perioud of history - because we took Michael Ventura's advice 20 years ago and abandoned capitalism?
That brings us to the follow up question of, if a small number of people are privileged during a small part of history, does that mean that the rest of it - filled as it was with problems and exploitation - is no longer a problem, and the critiques are no longer valid?
Just because capitalism works some of the time for a few of the people, doesn't mean that it's above criticism, and has no problems.
Since the majority of folks on HN have benefited from capitalism, it's not surprising that they are not as open to hearing criticisms of it.
The way you phrased the initial objection, made it sound like our current state (whereby anybody with internet access can launch a webapp with global reach for practically nothing) is some sort of insignificant fluke rather than part of a trend of continual improvement.
The current state has been thus for all of about a decade, maybe two if you want to get technical about it. It remains to be seen whether it sticks around for the long term. It is also debatable whether this really represents an improvement, much less a continual one. With the increasing availability of the basics to launch a web application, the expected value of doing so has declined correspondingly.
Even if we take it as given that relatively wealthy American programmers have experienced continual improvement in their lot over the past couple of decades, that doesn't mean that we will continue to do so - or that everyone else has experience anything remotely similar. I would argue that we - developers - have experienced more upward mobility than most careers in the last couple of decades, and it is precisely because of this that we are relatively privileged.
In short, our experience doesn't necessarily generalize to society at large.
I don't want to get drawn into a really long debate, I just have two things to say: 1. People aren't born developers, plumbers, etc., it's a career you choose 2. The technology that enables these things is not going to disappear, of that we can be pretty sure
The question, as another commenter posted elsewhere in this thread, is: does it scale?
Sure, you choose your career (to a large extent) but society needs developers AND plumbers, and too many people choosing to be developers would push down developer wages to the point where being a developer would no longer be desirable. It can't work for everyone.
We need a solution that does not create an underclass of people that society needs but does not value. In a truly fluid job market in which there was always hiring in every industry and every worker was able and prepared to do any kind of job, capitalism might take care of that. Unfortunately, that's not reality.
I think that the system we have is much better than many others that have been tried in the past, but that doesn't mean that it's optimal or that we should stop trying to improve.
This right here is an excellent point, and very well made. Everyone is pretending you can just run out and start your own business tommorrow if you want. Question is, who'd be unclogging the toilets, sweeping the floors, and teaching the children then?
" 1. People aren't born developers, plumbers, etc., it's a career you choose"
I didn't imply that they are, but ignoring that people have innate abilities - and by extension, innate weaknesses - that shape their choices is simplistic.
"2. The technology that enables these things is not going to disappear, of that we can be pretty sure"
I didn't say it would. However, the economic conditions that make working in fields related to it probably eventually will.
One point though is that if you follow the economic system that produces the greatest technological progress, then at least you get to keep those advances forever, whereas if you count on something that's suppossed to keep the economy steady and fair to all, and then that doesn't work out, what are you left with?
Anyway I agree, 'does it scale' is a totally valid point and I often think it myself when people give life lessons on Hacker News. Social scalability I call it. But like I said, the ins and outs of how to apply the principle to the argument at hand are just too long to get into here.
Capitalism works for more than "just a few people" "some of the time".
Highly debatable. Fly to a third world sweat shop and toss this idea around a bit. I don't think the folks there will be nearly as willing to listen to you as people here have been.
"No system is perfect."
Refusing to acknowledge the flaws in said systems is not a virtue.
"and why have they benefited from it? Because they were all born rich? Capitalism benefits people that want to put the time and effort into it."
They have benefitted from it because by and large, we are all upwardly mobile, well paid individuals working in an industry currently experiencing strong market demand. They have also benefitted simply by virtue of being born in America, where they are wealthier than most people in the world by virtue of simply being here (see, I can acknowledge the strengths of Capitalism as well).
Also, this statement is essentially the just-world hypothesis.
"All of your responses so far have been you, crapping on capitalism. Where is your alternative?"
Crapping on capitalism would be silly, since I've benefitted enormously from it. That said, it would be equally silly to be blind to it's many short comings.
I never said I have an alternative, but no one will ever have one if we don't admit some of the short comings to ourselves. Just because a person can't propose an alternative, does not mean that their observations on short comings are incorrect or off base.
We personally have managed to occupy a very rich and privileged part of history. That doesn't mean that anyone outside of this country (or even this industry) is rich and privileged, and you could make the argument that our riches are built on their repression and exploitation.
