ExSaaSperated: A blog about the struggle to start a sustainable SaaS - con-cat https://exsaasperated.com/2020/06/20/hello-world.html <comment><AUTHOR> This is likely going to sound too harsh (and the folks behind this seem lovely), but content creation efforts like this are a red flag to me in terms of evaluating whether or not a bootstrapped SAAS is going to "make" it.

This isn't because they're inherently bad or that the people writing them have bad intentions, but that they're a time/attention trap.

Meta articles like this, "How I made my first $10", "Breaking $1k MRR" and similar tend to do really well in attracting clicks but fail to connect with an actual target audience for whatever it is you're making. This makes them really dangerous as when you're starting out you don't have any "signal" as to what's working and these types seem positive.

Unfortunately, they're the equivalent of handing out free candy when your intention is to open a restaurant.

These folks would be much further ahead if they instead:

1\. Started writing/learning about specific tactics and skills for starting and marketing a SAAS.

2\. Randomly picked some industry or vertical and just started writing articles about learning that industry and the problems they had.

I say all this as someone who has drunk too deeply of the bootstrapped startup literature well, don't make my mistakes.

<comment><USER2> One of the trends I've noticed is that people who have minor SaaS success can 5x their income by creating an ebook + course + masterclass about how they did it. Selling shovels in a gold rush....

<comment><USER3> Every success story is really about people selling the secret of success, which is to sell the secret of success. Twitter is full of this. Every success guru is selling a course about selling courses.

<comment><USER4> Yes, there is some guy on Twitter, who recently grew his followers (like 100x) now he sells courses on how to grow your Twitter audience

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I actually feel like I've been hearing a ton about failures, though they're all preceded by "you never hear about failures", and proceeded by, "and then I took what I learned and succeeded".

What I actually never hear about is stories of trying to build a SaaS, failing, and then just giving up and going back to being a salaryman and retiring after a few decades. It's either that these stories are rare -- which signals that persistence works --, or the stories are just never shared.

<comment><USER6> I was planning to write something along the same lines, _if_ I make it. I guess the reason of this happening is this - after you fail, you are too busy picking up the pieces, and trying to survive.

I have written so much about small wins at my previous startup. And when it shut down, I was just trying to avoid falling.

In the current one, we built and failed with 5 products. And then got more traction in 10 days than we'd ever had ! When I put it this way, it sound like the story of success (in the making).

But it isn't. It is (if I write it), the story of how we got it wrong, and what not to do. The __bonus __is that we make it.

\--

Check out LightCat.io to see what got traction eventually.

You guys are smart - yes, this is a shameless plug. I am poor and cheap, and this is all I've got.

<comment><USER7> > yes, this is a shameless plug. I am poor and cheap, and this is all I've > got.

It will be difficult for you to know how much I empathize with this statement. Beautifully put.

Good luck to you Utkarsh.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Almost every SaaS I've worked on did not start as people sitting down saying, "Lets make a SaaS". It started as people fell into a problem space as part of their ongoing work. In those cases, your first customers are already right in front of you, so you build what they need, then iterate to make it more useful for a wider community.

There are certainly pain points to find your 10th-100th customer. But if you don't even know who your 1st customer is, you are flying blind.

<comment><USER9> It's more general I think: it's hard to build a SaaS without a head start. In your examples, having ~10 launching customers is such a head start.

But there's also plenty SaaSes that started building tech for something else, that didn't pan out, but they realized they could sell the tech separately. Eg close.io did this and so did my company talkjs.com. There's likely many more examples.

But I agree that if you have to start without something to sell _and_ without customers ready to pay, you're definitely in for a rough ride.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> "Also, all these whiz-bang success stories suffer from enormous survivorship bias."

Well that's because in 2 years when you finally pull the plug on a failing business so you can pay your bills, you end up shutting down the blog you stopped posting to regularly 14 months ago and nobody can find it anyway because you put it on an 'indie' platform.

</comment><comment><USER11> The hosting of comments through Github is, interesting in a brilliant way. Maybe I've spent too much time triaging issues at work and I'm confusing Stockholm syndrome for affection.

Either way, this site has a certain tenderness, thanks for sharing.

<comment><USER12> _> this site has a certain tenderness, thanks for sharing_

Thank you so much for the kind words. It really means a lot to us.

 _> comments through Github is interesting in a brilliant way_

Thank you! Honestly we're just cheap/lazy – we really wanted a super low- maintenance blogging platform, and static pages are amazing IMHO. This gave us "all" of both worlds, sort of.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'm trying to get into it but don't know what to make. I follow Indie Hackers/Entrepreneur podcasts/wip.chat/etc... now I'm looking into Shopify stuff, make some niche API connector or something... but it will be a time sink to learn their docs/how stuff works on the Shopify aspect. Possible oversaturated market, etc... but I figure if I cruise through the forums/see recurring problems, maybe I can find something to build.

Recently I had a friend who runs a shipping business have me make him a PayPal button generator built into an email template that was mailed out so they could specify a price/tax/name/etc... That was cool, but I would not have come up with that problem on my own as I don't run the particular shipping business he does.

<comment><USER6> This is a pretty interesting place to be. Since you have not yet committed yourself - so you sort of have a superpower that many of us crave for.

There are at least a few ways of thinking about this.

The well documented ones 1\. Think about problems you've faced. Solve it. 2\. Research online, find problems, fix them (what you seem to be doing).

Less Documented ones: 1\. Pick a product you like - as a customer / user. Deep dive. See what they got right and what they didn't. Who they serve well, and who isn't happy. Then build something similar in a 'different' market (what Notion did to Evernote and Roam is doing to Notion, Freshdesk to Zendesk).

2\. Think of 3-5 skills you've got as an individual. Forget products for a moment. Think about people - who can you help with a combination of those skills, better than most (or cheaper than most). Talk to these people. Offer your service. Later build a product around this (Close.com, and if I remember correctly, even Kissmetrics.)

<comment><USER13> I have a 9-5 job currently. Also contribute to a local "code for location" thing. I have some time, I have a bit though generally being single/no responsibilities other than myself.

I don't like that I have one income and I'm scared of losing my job sort of thing, granted I get a lot of recruiters hitting me up(though am I qualified, just string matching).

> 1\. Think about problems you've faced.

This mostly it's an attention thing for me, I'm trying to learn Android/make a widget, I did the cross platform app part for the mobile/desktop app, for a centralized thing... this is not something that would make money eg. OneNote/Evernote/etc... Other thing is managing money I have spread sheet tabs.

Yeah only thing I use really are the note taking/money managing stuff(not YNAB or something just tabulating).

Yeah working with friends is hit and miss... I didn't get paid for that thing I built was about 14 hours(had to figure out PayPal's API(which one)).

I actually have few friends, most are in specific niches eg. aero industries.

Thanks for the thoughts.

edit: I didn't get paid because I'm expensive(to this person)/weird to ask friends for money even though time/expertise costs someone something. Arguable too can you charge for something you don't know... anyway it's still like one of those things where $60/hr or something is too expensive for a person.

At the end though, no I have not tried hard enough, I haven't launched anything.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> There are two more posts at [https://exsaasperated.com/](https://exsaasperated.com/) ("who are you?" and "our goal") that further enlighten (though they still don't cover _what_ will be being built, I guess that'll come soon).

<comment><USER12> Hey Chris, thanks for visiting. Author here. We actually have several projects we've tried to launch with varying degrees of traction. One of them ([https://vistaserv.net](https://vistaserv.net)) made the rounds here a while ago, actually. We plan to write posts about several of these projects, pick apart what worked and didn't. And, if we come up with resources or techniques that worked well for us, we'll be posting about those, too. Stay tuned :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> ExSaaSperated: a SaaS to help you build your own unsustainable SaaS.

</comment><comment><USER16> Cool! I wish you luck.

I have authored one project that took ten years to reach maturity (It is now exploding). That allowed me to iterate it, and ensure that it would be top- quality, by the time I tossed the reins over to a new team.

It was free, though, and a labor of love[0].

I wrote another project as a "training course." It was sort of a dissertation. The quality is pretty much "off the charts."

I had originally thought about selling it, but was told that was a non- starter, because it was written in in PHP[1], so I simply open-sourced it as MIT.

Nowadays, I work on client-side code (native Swift for Apple stuff). I am not in a hurry to get back to SaaS.

I like the name of the blog.

[0] [https://medium.com/@ChrisMarshallNY/the-story-of-the- bmlt-87...](https://medium.com/@ChrisMarshallNY/the-story-of-the- bmlt-8759f2de467d)

[1] [https://riftvalleysoftware.com/work/open-source- projects/#ba...](https://riftvalleysoftware.com/work/open-source- projects/#baobab)

<comment><USER17> Interested in why writing it in PHP made selling it a non-starter. I'd expect that if it provided value it wouldn't really matter much what it was written in.

<comment><USER16> Because PHP is not "buzzword-worthy." I was told, in no uncertain terms, that the fact it was written in PHP would mean that "no one would take it seriously," and that I would not get anyone interested in implementing it.

Considering the lack of interest in the project, I have to agree with that assessment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> My suggestion is to look outside of SaaS. Software is much easier to bootstrap in the past decade, increasing competition (from within a customer, and competitors). We're in the phase where every single permutation of what one can do with software is being exhausted.

Businesses using the same concepts and business models outside of this scope have potentially less competition, higher available market, and higher upside purchase exit.

Someone mentioned patio11, he essentially referenced the lower exit, customer fatigue as why he joined Stripe a few years ago

<comment><USER19> > Businesses using the same concepts and business models outside of this scope > have potentially less competition, higher available market, and higher > upside purchase exit.

What type of businesses are you talking about here? Non-software or just non SaaS?

<comment><USER18> My line of thinking is this: For the past decade(s), the area of growth has been software. It has sucked in professionals into the industry who would have been biologists, chemists, physicists, etc.

So my belief is that those areas are actually void of progress, because 'software' took the intelligence that would have been applied to other areas simply because software often paid 1x-5x more in salary.

But now software, in both profession and product - is becoming overly competitive, and will become top heavy with engineers 'stuck' to move forward (in areas of innovation). One can easily see it in what the industry produces to show our phase - the low hanging fruit is gone. Progress is much less innovation, rather than efficiency, measurement, and tooling. Efficiency is like pulling in an MBA to remove the cruft - one can mostly expect linear, smaller gains.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> > We want to start a SaaS product

That's not how you start a company.

</comment><comment><USER21> I find it is hard to start an online company, especially if you do not already have a large network. What happens is you build something, and then.. nothing. I sometimes wonder just what percentage is luck, reaching that right person at the right time. (I launched my product on producthunt today so I'm very aware of the need for an audience )

</comment><comment><USER22> I struggle to find anything "frontpage material" on that page.

</comment><comment><USER23> Hello -

this is a post I wrote about scaling to 50k users without a marketing budget

[https://medium.com/rezi-resume/0-to-50-000-users-a-candid- lo...](https://medium.com/rezi-resume/0-to-50-000-users-a-candid-look-into- creative-growth-2774bef993af)

It might be interesting for your blog?</comment>


SQL Server Management Studio (SSMS) Outside of the SQL Engine Releases - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.msdn.com/b/sqlreleaseservices/archive/2015/06/24/sql-server-management-studio-june-2015-release.aspx

<comment><USER2> "New option to skip prompt to save T-SQL files"

That option alone is worth so much to me.

I can't believe it took them this long to make it a standalone product. However, it's a very welcomed change.

</comment><comment><USER3> "Table Designer is now enabled for Azure SQL Database V12

Database and Table property dialogs are now enabled for Azure SQL Database V12"

These two are amazing for me.</comment>


Ask HN: Seeking open source grocery inventory database - <AUTHOR>

I would be interested in building such a DB with others but I am asking because I am trying to start a grocery delivery business. <comment><USER2> There is none, that I'm aware of -- and I've worked with IT for a couple of grocery markets.

Building such a database system will be trivial. They don't need anything fancy.

HOWEVER: your big stumbling blocks will be integration with NCR and other very, very proprietary hardware; and adoption. Once a store has a system in place, they're very reluctant to mess with it, because the systems are fragile and downtime can cost a lot of money in a hurry.

If you get curious about how to hack older NCR market systems, let me know. Email's in my profile.

</comment><comment><USER3> At a guess, you won't see such a beast in the wild because unlike the rest of a typical general ledger business package, inventories tend to be customized for the particular customer. This before any effort to involve point of sale hardware/software.

</comment><comment><USER4> Closest thing i can think of is the Tesco API: <http://www.programmableweb.com/api/tesco>

edit: also, keep in mind the story of Webvan: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webvan></comment>


Why Does It Cost $750k to Build Affordable Housing in San Francisco? - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com./2020/02/20/us/California-housing-costs.html <comment><USER2> because san francisco</comment>


The Path Amazon Rejected - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/16/opinion/amazon-new-york-bill-de-blasio.html <comment><USER2> I don't understand the outrage towards Amazon.

1\. No one forced any of these states/cities to join this bidding contest. They willingly participated. "How dare Amazon put cities against one another in a bidding war?!" Yeah, I put five dealers against one another in a bidding war to get my business the last time I shopped for a car. Amazon can do the same thing.

2\. "Jeff Bezos doesn't need our tax breaks!" I bet he doesn't. I don't think Jeff Bezos personally helped elect all the leaders who offered all these tax breaks. At the end of the day, Amazon will create jobs. Will it gentrify these cities? Yes, absolutely. So would Google, Apple, or Facebook moving into a new area. "But those other companies didn't ask for tax breaks." They literally hold hundreds of billions in wealth overseas. I'm not arguing in favor of tax breaks for Amazon. I am saying, however, Amazon didn't stage a coup against these mayors and governors and threaten to hurt them if Amazon didn't get tax breaks. NYC officials (at least some) openly invited Amazon. Good on Amazon for walking out. Private companies don't owe you anything.

The system is broken. Neither party has done anything to fix it. You have a company taking advantage of the perfectly legal rules that the system set up. OH GAWD better grab pitchforks. Yet, all the same lying Congressional leaders get re-elected election after re-election.

This de Blasio character openly invited Amazon. Now that they've backed out, he's angry that Amazon had cities bid against each other and that it was so wrong? Are you kidding me? de Blasio is a prime example of what's wrong with American politics.

<comment><USER3> "You have a company taking advantage of the perfectly legal rules that the system set up. OH GAWD better grab pitchforks."

People aren't allowed to be upset about something just because it's not illegal?

<comment><USER4> Reality doesn't allow people to have it both ways. Either be upset that the system incentivizes the behavior, or be upset that the incentives failed.

In both of those cases, the blame lies at the feet of the elected officials. Granted, the implication of that is the blame lies at the feet of those who cast the ballots (George Carlin, we miss you). People always have trouble blaming themselves.

Corporations are jello. They take the shape of the mold they sit in. If they get big enough, the mold is the whole world's economy.

<comment><USER5> > In both of those cases, the blame lies at the feet of the elected officials. > Granted, the implication of that is the blame lies at the feet of those who > cast the ballots...

Blame also lies at the feet of those people and organizations who twist the imperfect rules and governmental systems to suit themselves at the expense of others.

To put it another way: all software has bugs, and many of them get exploited. While it might feel just to put _all_ the blame on the software engineer who wrote the code (after all, wasn't he supposed to have done a perfect job?), blame still lies at the feet of those people who chose to exploit the bugs to enrich themselves and/or do harm to others. Hackers are not an impersonal force of nature, they're people who made a choice.

<comment><USER4> Except the tax incentives aren't bugs in your analogy to software. They're design choices. The system was given specific characteristics to produce the results that occurred (before Amazon backed out). If the system is so designed, then working in harmony with its design choices is not exploitation.

But I'll grant you, I'm just arguing the analogy.

The real problem seems to me to be that de Blasio is being a weather vane of sorts. He was a cheerleader for Amazon, doing the work to get them into the city. When that failed and political gain was to be had, he changed his tune to "OMG! I can't believe how evil they are! I'm a victim!"

Amazon didn't twist the rules, they played by them (unsuccessfully, as it happens). Nor was this at the expense of others. Whether Amazon got to build a headquarters in NY or not didn't preclude others from doing so. Whether Amazon got tax incentives to go to NY or not, didn't take money away from anyone else. Additional tax revenue that might have been collected is not money that _belongs_ to someone else.

It is reasonable to expect moral behavior from individuals. History tells us that corporations almost never display moral behavior. Partly this is because they permit decisions where each person in the corporation may assume that someone else will be moral; a very ordinary human failing. (Forward thinking beyond the framework of advantage for self and company is rare.)

Corporations as a whole don't have a conscience. That's why we regulate. That's why we create laws with which the harm corporations might do to people is reduced and minimized so that the benefits corporations can bring may still be realized. Anthropomorphizing corporations is only useful for generating anger, which, in turn, is only useful for political gain. (Discounting First Amendment goggles.)

That lands things squarely back on the voter's back in the system here in the U.S. If we go back to your analogy, voters are the ones hiring the designers and not invalidating the contract when the design goes off the rails.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I don't buy de Blasio's outrage. If he was truly worried about Amazon being a "bad neighbor," why did he have a _carte blanche_ policy until the very moment they backed off? In fact, it took regular citizens asking the hard questions for Amazon to back off in the first place. Aren't we electing mayors to fight these fights _for us_?

<comment><USER7> It's not outrage, it's spin. He represents one of the two parties that was prepared to engage in a deal that ordinary people get very angry about. (i.e. massive corporate tax breaks) So if the media plays along with the spin, he will succeed in shifting a lot of the outrage away from his administration and on to Amazon.

<comment><USER8> Well, in fairness, the outrage wouldn't be on his administration in any case.

One thing he's conveniently not mentioning is that he was opposed to giving Amazon any tax breaks or other concessions from the start. The state politicians overruled him.

Although his position, I suppose, is that Amazon should move to NYC, _without_ any concessions. Which is not altogether off the wall. That's how it should work for _ALL_ companies and all places. Corporate welfare is out of hand in this country. It's just a little idealistic on his part, that's just not how things work in reality. He's gonna get overruled by the higher ups every time on that one.

<comment><USER9> >Corporate welfare is out of hand in this country.

That's certainly one view. Another is that these are just breaks on excessive taxes by one government to compete with other governments that have sane corporate taxes in the first place.

I don't understand how tax reductions are considered welfare. It's not money the government has already being passed out to Amazon. The government _would have still made money_ in this scenario, just less.

<comment><USER10> It's unfair to the companies that don't get the tax breaks. Politically, I'm not sure having an environment where special rules are granted or exempted by government officials on a selective basis is healthy either.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Amazon screwed up when they made choosing a place into a reality contest. That came off as egotistical and people took notice. They brought the attention on to themselves. I think they finally realized that walking out of it and letting it die down is the best way going forward.

<comment><USER12> That seems to be the popular opinion (that this is Amazon's fault) but I disagree. Amazon coming to LIC would have been a net benefit for everyone. 25k jobs that pay a minimum wage of $15/hour...who would reject that? Sure they get a $3b tax break, but they would have paid far more than that in state taxes over the long term. The people on the city council did not represent the the best interest of the citizens, instead trying to spin this as a stand against corporate greed. It's too bad they couldn't work this out. I think this will hurt NYC in the long run.

<comment><USER13> How much did amazon pay in federal and state taxes in 2017 or 2018?

<comment><USER14> Even if Amazon paid no corporate income tax at all, their 25,000 employees would still be paying many millions of dollars a year in state and local income taxes, real estate taxes and sales taxes. And both Amazon and its employees would be buying lots of goods and services from local businesses, generating even more taxable economic activity.

Some of these employees might even eventually leave Amazon and found new startups in NYC.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> > Just days before, I had counseled a senior Amazon executive...

Can pretty much stop there. I think Amazon saw a mayor and governor who thought they traded tax breaks for a say in how Amazon runs its business.

This was a huge loss for the city. LIC will be toxic to big business for years. And now the mayor is passing the blame to the very corporations who would come in and create jobs.

<comment><USER16> >"LIC will be toxic to big business for years"

You mean like Citibank, JetBlue, Fresh Direct and Steve Madden who all moved to Long Island City years ago and continue to flourish? Or like Ralph Lauren who just signed a lease for 19K square foot of space and Cornel University's building of their Techion campus? Yeah right.

I'm amazed on the number of people who appear be not only unfamiliar with Long Island City as a neighborhood but also of NYC and it current economic well- being in technology jobs. And yet these same folks feel compelled to make comments about what a "huge loss" this is.

<comment><USER17> Those companies pay garbage.

<comment><USER16> Your comment as is as uniformed as it is absurd. Many of those are fortune 500/publicly traded companies. That not withstanding, the comment was that that the business environment would somehow now toxic in LIC which has exactly zero to do with salary ranges.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> de Blasio tweeted this after Amazon cancelled: [https://twitter.com/NYCMayor/status/1096110674613358593](https://twitter.com/NYCMayor/status/1096110674613358593)

"working with the community" is code for "bribe" among the community organizer types.

<comment><USER19> That's an incredibly uncharitable insinuation. Do you think community organizers do it for the money? There are a lot of reasons people choose to advocate but regardless of weather you think they're right they generally do it because they actually believe in something. It's unlikely fighting Amazon is a very profitable venture.

<comment><USER17> They certainly do it for the power (the majority of them). Very few people put themselves in that position without an eye for moving into politics to continue their power growth.

Remember, the vast majority of people do not do things long term for altruistic reasons.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Why would Amazon try to make things right in NYC, when they can just go somewhere else that welcomes them with open arms and no complaints? NYC didn't offer them anything of particularly great value that they couldn't get elsewhere. I wish they were being better about helping the communities they are moving into, but I can see why they would just leave.

<comment><USER16> >"NYC didn't offer them anything of particularly great value that they couldn't get elsewhere."

You mean like access to a very large and very skilled labor pool? A 24 hour transit system, 3 major airports? 1 million square feet of available office like they were going to take in Citicorp tower that has a train stop at the bottom of the building? Sure.

<comment><USER20> Amazon doesn't need a large local labor pool. They get far more applicants than they need and plenty of people willing to move to work there.

There are lots of cities with empty office space. And in most cities parking isn't a problem so the transit isn't necessary.

You gotta think like Amazon — most of those things weren't huge benefits to them. They were benefits to their future employees but only in that city.

The main things they are looking for are tax breaks and rapid development without a lot of red tape. NYC was proving that rapid development was out of the picture and so was the lack of red tape.

<comment><USER16> >"Amazon doesn't need a large local labor pool. They get far more applicants than they need and plenty of people willing to move to work there."

Nonsense. It's far more efficient to be able to tap a local labor pool. Google, FB, et al set up shop in NYC for this ver And there are always people who don't want or can not relocate. Or who simply do not want to live in New York City.

>"And in most cities parking isn't a problem so the transit isn't necessary"

Please name just one top tier city where parking isn't a problem and mass transit isn't necessary.

<comment><USER20> Dallas.

<comment><USER16> Sorry Dallas is not a "top tier" city. Not by any measure - population-wise, ethnic diversity, diversity of industry or culturally. Nobody sets up shop in Dallas as a selling point to attract the world's top talent.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Basically, a plea for everybody else to make it more difficult to do business in their local community, so NYC can be more competitive. I'm sure there is a tragedy of the commons somewhere in the "pitting cities against one another" as he mentioned. But perhaps it isn't ideal to think that a large corporation needs to come to your city and fix your problems either, and that it's not fair that they don't want to.

With a corporation the size of Amazon, US cities aren't just competing against each other. The US is a whole is competing against other countries. And these companies are competing against other global companies. Of course they are going to want the lowest hassle, highest efficiency, and largest margins possible.

Surely helping the poor and encouraging business don't need to be diametrically opposed. One might think the two go hand in hand.

<comment><USER22> One way to get Amazon to contribute to fixing a cities problem would be to tax them but they aren't paying any taxes.

<comment><USER9> That's a problem with the government. Amazon isn't evading taxes. It's using standard government legislated tax deductions and rebates: [http://www.newser.com/story/271410/amazon-banked-11b-in- prof...](http://www.newser.com/story/271410/amazon-banked-11b-in-profit-year- and-paid-what-in-taxes.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Mayor of New York: You gotta be tough to make it in New York.

Businesses with lots of money: Let's go where it's easier

<comment><USER24> Not all businesses with a lot of money... For example, the financial industry is not going to leave New York anytime soon, as New York is their talent hub.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Virginia thanks NY for those extra jobs. The issue here is NY's leaders are idiots and don't understand the fundamentals of economics. Deferred or reduced taxes on Amazon (investment) in exchange for many thousands of good paying jobs (return) and all the down stream economic benefits as those employees pay taxes on good salaries, buy houses, buy cars, and participate in a plethora of other economic activities in the local environment (further returns). Keep electing clowns that want to keep raising taxes, adding regulation, and are unfriendly to business and you get a free market result - companies leave or don't come to NY in favor of other more business friendly locations. Brooklyn loses a set of very good jobs due to political blundering yet people people want to blame "evil" Amazon. Sorry, that's not how this works. Good for Amazon.

</comment><comment><USER26> Big Corp: We don't need to pay taxes, our employees do it on our behalf.

</comment><comment><USER27> As a non-American, I have a question about two things that stand out for me (and do correct me if I'm wrong): the first is that Amazon pays no federal taxes. The second is that corporations seem to expect locals to pay for things that they can then make money off — Amazon's installation in this instance but also American football stadiums stand out as an egregious example.

What responsibility (if any) do American companies have towards the communities/societies they exist in (beyond delivering value to shareholders -- wherever they may be)?

</comment><comment><USER28> This is just a face-saving op-ed by a guy who wants to run for President. The fact that they only gave him an hour's notice shows just how gullible he was and how little respect Amazon had for him in the first place. All of those things he counseled them to do - hire people from the public housing projects, meet with labor organizers, etc - should have been concessions extracted _before_ he signed onto the deal.

<comment><USER29> > All of those things he counseled them to do - hire people from the public > housing projects, meet with labor organizers, etc - should have been > concessions extracted before he signed onto the deal.

Exactly my thoughts. Though Amazon should have done this in the first place instead of doing that awful HQ2 search spectacle.

Another thing that jumps out when reading this editorial from the mayor is how strange it is to see him acknowledge Amazons behavior with the min wage tax increase in Seattle that they threw a tantrum about, and yet still he invited them to come to NYC with the tax breaks on a silver platter.

<comment><USER28> What really blows my mind about this is that we are talking about _New York City_.

NYC is absolutely stuffed with America's best talent. Amazon needs NYC so much more than NYC needs Amazon.

The entire HQ2 shakedown was always just Amazon seeing how much they could fleece NYC. It's ludicrous New Yorkers are having to do the bargaining they elected a mayor to do for them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Amazon wanted public money to setup their operations - well they got it together with all the rest that comes with it. If they ever take federal money (and going down 0 tax rate is that path), they'll need to pray they won't be nationalized.

</comment><comment><USER31> I'm skeptical of the article. I most want to see a more descriptive summary of "the agreement we struck with Amazon back in November".

Is it public?

</comment><comment><USER32> Being a sore loser is always a poor strategy. Reflect on mistakes made and opportunities lost and move on.

</comment><comment><USER33> I think SNL had a good point, Amazon isn't the worst company in NY, the Trump Organization is also there remember.

</comment><comment><USER34> How much was AOC responsible for this?

<comment><USER35> Minor bandwagonning at the end by all sane accounts, but she's a convenient face for it, I guess.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What are the alternatives to LinkedIn? - <AUTHOR> I am not happy that my data now will belong to MS and I want to migrate to an alternative. Any suggestions? <comment><USER2> That's odd. You didn't mind your data belonging to LinkedIn (which has suffered some rather large data breaches) but are not happy with it being with MS (which, arguably has better protection)? In anycase, I would assume, the _value_ of LinkedIn was the network, so unless the alternative has the same level of networking it would really be pointless to migrate.

That said, I know for a fact that Xing is as popular (if not more) in Germany. So, perhaps there are other similar professional networking sites with a local focus based on where you are.

</comment><comment><USER3> What data do you really have on there that you're worried about?

All I have is a web version of my resume and an inbox full of recruiter introductions.

The connections are probably the most valuable part, but those are public either way.

</comment><comment><USER4> Hold on a minute, OP raises a valid concern, I also do not feel comfortable with MS controlling my professional social value as their property.

But you mock ?

</comment><comment><USER5> Do you mind sharing why?

</comment><comment><USER6> It is possible that you are suffering from a mental illness.

I think you should consider seeing someone.

</comment><comment><USER7> Your own website. Why rely on someone else owning your data?</comment>


Don't panic, friends, but the Chinese nicked one of America's underwater drones - <AUTHOR> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/12/16/chinese_navy_steals_unmanned_seaglider_submersible_in_south_china_sea/ <comment><USER2> Existing discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13194523](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13194523)</comment>


Cartography Comparison: Google Maps and Apple Maps - <AUTHOR> https://www.justinobeirne.com/cartography-comparison-part-1 <comment><USER2> Recent: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13382746](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13382746)

</comment><comment><USER3> Holy Heavens! —what an enormous about of text and graphs to 'prove" what is completely obvious from the most cursory glance: Google maps include more road info. Apple maps include more place-names.</comment>


The Myth of a Stagnant Middle Class - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323468604578249723138161566.html <comment><USER2> I am tired of this:

"the CPI overestimates inflation by underestimating the value of improvements in product quality and variety"

The extreme right-wing has been making this argument since the early 1980s. I used to believe this argument, as it once sounded believable. But Newt Gingrich used this issue (among others) to engineer a Republican resurgence in 1994, and one of the first things they did was force the Bureau of Labor Statistics to change the way it calculates the CPI, so that more attention was paid to quality improvements of goods and services.

What surprised me was that the right-wingers continued to use this argument, as if nothing had changed. It was then that I realized they were arguing in bad faith. No matter how many changes were made to the CPI, they were going to keep repeating the mantra "The CPI overstates inflation".

Regarding what the Republicans achieved during 1994-1995, here are some articles worth reading:

[http://www.shadowstats.com/article/no-438-public-comment- on-...](http://www.shadowstats.com/article/no-438-public-comment-on-inflation- measurement)

[http://bluemassgroup.com/2010/11/the-1995-gop-revolution- scr...](http://bluemassgroup.com/2010/11/the-1995-gop-revolution-screwed-the- seniors-out-of-cola-this-year/)

<comment><USER3> The WSJ has lost all credibility with me. This and the picture of sad faces of people that will pay more in taxes, but all of them had ridiculously high incomes, were the last straws. They have moved from somewhat impartial to full-on a promoting the GOP agenda.

<comment><USER4> Did you expect anything less from Rupert Murdoch? As soon as I saw the news of him buying the WSJ, I knew it was just a matter of time until it was filled with propaganda.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This article is pretty much geared for people who can't do math (ironically, considering the ostensible target demographic of the WSJ).

1) Pointing out that things have gotten cheaper is specious. Things have gotten cheaper for rich people too. One would expect technological progress to make things cheaper over time--what does that have to do with income distribution within the country?

2) Average worker productivity has increased since 1965 while real wages have stagnated. You can't use the "women and minorities are dragging the average" down there, because they are included in the worker productivity average as well.

3) Most importantly, the share of national income earned by the middle class has decreased: [http://www.interest.com/files/2012/08/pew_income_distributio...](http://www.interest.com/files/2012/08/pew_income_distribution_2012.jpg). Technology makes things cheaper, sure. Is it enough that the middle class can afford more widgets than they could before? The real debate is who is getting the benefit of the fact that Americans are working longer and more productively than they did 50 years ago. Prices are irrelevant to this question. What the data shows is that the upper class is receiving the vast majority of the increased production. Why is that the case? Are that much smarter and harder working than they were 50 years ago?

<comment><USER6> _Things have gotten cheaper for rich people too. One would expect technological progress to make things cheaper over time--what does that have to do with income distribution within the country?_

Nothing. But the article makes no attempt to address income inequality.

These are two different questions:

1\. Has the middle class stagnated over the last _n_ decades?

2\. Has the middle class improved its share of national income over the last _n_ decades?

In fact, it's possible to believe that income inequality is ultimately a _good thing_ that improves the standard of living across all income brackets.

Edit: The short version of this argument: _It's good to let some people get very rich creating the iPhone if the end result is that we all end up with iPhones._

<comment><USER7> The first question is bordering on bad faith.

It's nigh-on-tautological that technological advances will ensure that being middle class in 2010 is 'better' than being middle class in 1970. [1]

But more air conditioning, computers and even cell phones does not negate the argument that productivity and wage gains have diverged.

And how else would one fairly assess, in the aggregate, if workers are being rewarded for their work, than to see if greater productivity is being rewarded with greater wages? And how else does one describe the situation where continued productivity gains were met with low-to-no gains in wealth, other than "stagnation"?

For we're not talking about absolute _shares_ of national income here. Economics is no zero-sum gain. There are net increases. There is wealth _creation_. And we're talking about where this created wealth has _gone_. And for the last several decades, it hasn't gone to the workers. Even though their productivity has continued to increase and, historically at least, those two have tended to increase together.

Framing the situation in terms of your first question is tantamount to the arguments that poverty today isn't a problem simply because, historically, the poor have never lived so well.

It's an irrelevant distraction used to keep people from asking the second question. [2]

[1] If technological gains stopped delivering improved quality of life, we'd be facing a civilization-level calamity that would render concerns about productivity gains less than irrelevant. Because it would necessarily imply that technological advances had topped out _and_ resources were now becoming scarce.

[2] Asserting that questions of economic fairness and health are answered solely by whether today's workers are doing at least as well as yesterday's workers is pretty close to anti-American. To accept that argument, one would have to believe that it's not necessary for hard work to be rewarded. All those "up by your boot-straps" stories are contingent upon harder and smarter work being _rewarded_. And here we're staring at an economy-wide case where harder and smarter work has simply been the baseline for continued employment. It's no longer "do well and move up." It's "do well or move out."

<comment><USER6> I more or less agree with everything you said, which is why I think the really salient question is whether income inequality is actually a _driver_ of technological progress. Everybody loses in a more "fair" but ultimately less prosperous society.

<comment><USER7> It's trivially true that an unequal-but-growing economy is better than a more- equal-but-shrinking one. But that's neither here nor there. No-one's advocating radical changes. No-one's saying we should carve up the golden goose because eggs were being 'unfairly' distributed.

It's another hallmark of bad faith arguments to respond to a disagreement-in- degrees as if the other side were advocating extreme positions.

No-one's seizing the means of production here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Over the last thirty years, households have gone from predominantly single bread winner, to dual earner. And at the same time, consumer debt has done up while savings have gone down.

Now, if worker compensation was growing significantly faster than inflation, wouldn't we expect the amount of disposable income to be higher, and hence savings and debt to be lower? Why were Americans forced to tap home equity and credit cards to continue consumption? Either prices went up, or people started consuming a lot more. The article claims disposable income went up, but if that's the case, why the credit binge? Doesn't add up.

Moreover, even if you ignore this, the share of national income of the bottom quintiles has been dropping monotonically over the last 30 years, but it was rising with the rest of the quintiles prior to that. That tends to indicate that broad based productivity increases were accruing benefits to workers. Now it tends to indicate that productivity increases accrue solely to capital and not labor. It is not a stable situation.

The apologetics seem designed to avoid debate about the problem, just like climate change, because the assumed solutions would conflict with closely held ideological beliefs. That is, ideological belief trumps contradictory data.

<comment><USER9> _Now, if worker compensation was growing significantly faster than inflation, wouldn't we expect the amount of disposable income to be higher, and hence savings and debt to be lower?_

Not necessarily. If college education and its financing became more broadly available and increased expected lifetime earnings by more than the cost of the debt to pay for it (+ opportunity cost), you might expect to see many more households with college debt without your expected lower incomes.

We've been living through two decades of historically low rates of interest and inflation. It's possible that had folks in the 1970's seen rates like that, they might have chosen to debt-finance more as well.

<comment><USER8> It is true that credit is a lot easier to come by, and given American's trade deficit/capital account surplus, a lot more money across the world is flowing into the US, like crack into a poor neighborhood, obviously increasing borrowing above what it would have been in the 70s. I'm not sure how to square this, it pollutes the data.

It does seem to me however, that given the loss of manufacturing jobs, and the increase in low end retail / service jobs, that there has been downward pressure on wages.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> All I see is a bunch of handwaving and distractions from what is admitted to be a real issue at the start.

Imagine we still had slavery in the US in 2013. Who would argue that slavery is perfectly ok because, by golly, slaves live longer and have access to nicer clothes and improved healthcare? And look, we had to deal with an influx of new slaves, so it's actually their fault! Really, those are your arguments?

After seeing this and the hopeless single mother making $260k infographic, WSG seems to be pretty out of touch.

[I'm not trying to compare low wage workers to slaves. At all. I'm making an analogy concerning red herrings.]

<comment><USER11> You're missing the point. The gross numbers haven't increased, but the things that actually matter (what you can buy for your money) have decreased. The key point being:

"spending by households on many of modern life's "basics"—food at home, automobiles, clothing and footwear, household furnishings and equipment, and housing and utilities—fell from 53% of disposable income in 1950 to 44% in 1970 to 32% today."

There's a reason why the middle class today can buy so much MORE stuff, it's all much cheaper. The article is saying people are not richer, but the quality of life is not significantly different for the middle class then it is for the rich (the same access to long life, short travel, etc...)

<comment><USER12> But they spend more on healthcare and education (upward social mobility should ideally be affordable to all).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I've been making this point for a while. In particular, there is pretty solid data showing that immigration drags down the average hourly wage, based on longitudinal data which excludes them:

[http://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2011/immigrants_simpsons_p...](http://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2011/immigrants_simpsons_paradox_great_stagnation.html)

(The data compares the income of Americans to that of their parents, thereby excluding people who's parents are not Americans.)

Note that this observation (by itself) is not an argument against immigration. <http://openborders.info/compositional-effects/>

</comment><comment><USER14> Another factor that isn't often acknowledged when making comparisons of 'household income' over time: households are shrinking.

To contrive a stark example, say 30 years prior the median household size was 4 people, and the household income was $100K (in real dollars). Fast-forward to a later period, median household size 3 people (due to later marrying, fewer children, more people living alone), and median household income $90K.

A politician or publication wanting to preach stagnation will run with the headline: "Household Income down 10%!". But in actuality, the household income _per household member_ has risen from $25K to $30K, a 25% increase.

(Real-life effects are much subtler than this, but I believe in the same direction for most recent analyses of 'household income'.)

<comment><USER12> Conversely, mean number of earners per household has also gone up, but household income does not reflect this.

<comment><USER14> Also an excellent point, and possibly a concern... but some of this has been a conscious rebalancing of roles (for example, men doing more nonmarket work and women doing more market work) to optimize leisure time. Altogether, the story is complicated and top-level headlines from people with political agendas almost always mislead.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> >Consider the electronic products that every middle-class teenager can now afford—iPhones, iPads, iPods and laptop computers.

No teenager can afford this. They, or their parents, go into debt for it.

And that is the problem. The ability of middle class Americans to buy what they are implored by our consumerist society to buy has fallen sharply. General unhappiness and massive amounts of personal debt used to finance knickknacks is the outcome.

<comment><USER16> Most middle-class teenagers with even a part-time job could afford these items.

<comment><USER17> Because they live at home and are subsidized by their parents.

<comment><USER9> Just like all middle class teenagers, forever. I'm not sure what your point is.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Boudreaux is presenting an absolute view of the economy when we've always looked at it from a relative perspective. Yes the dollar value of middle class wages have always gone up but it's still a big problem if they haven't risen in line with inflation or the overall growth of the economy. Economic gains are not sustainable if the middle class doesn't have the buying power to keep up with it. One reason our recovery has been so slow is that the gains from when our economy was exploding did not trickle down to the middle class which in turn did not create the demand needed to bring the economy back. The right likes to say that businesses aren't hiring because of regulations or economic/tax uncertainty. But the fact is if the demand was there, they'd be hiring left and right. The middle class just isn't capable of providing that demand right now.

He is also ignoring the effects of the average households going from 1 working adult to 2. Obviously, when household income doubles that family will have much more spending power to buy expensive i-devices. But the loss of a stay at home parent whose full time job is to take care of the home also has severe consequences not always seen in economic indicators.

</comment><comment><USER19> Wealth is relative. Instead of comparing today's middle class to today's rich (a comparison in which the middle class is unambiguously losing ground), the author would rather us compare the middle class of today to the middle class of yesterday.

This is a big red herring, since this article comes in the context of a broader societal discussion about whether we should raise taxes on the rich.

Another problem is that the author chooses his examples very selectively when making the argument that the rich are barely better off than the middle class. There are too many counterexamples to count, but the most important difference is that the rich, because they live primarily on passive income and can hire domestic help, have free use of their own time, in contrast with middle class people who have to work 8+ hour days to maintain their standard of living.

However, the analysis about _why_ wages have been stagnant is good stuff.

</comment><comment><USER20> This article also lacks any economic literacy based on one simple fact: When statistics report that middle class wages have been stagnant for decades (by this article's own account, 48 years), remember this figure is already adjusted for inflation. This means that the buying power of the 2013 dollar has already been normalized to the power of the 1982 dollar (or whenever) primarily against the price of the costs of necessities like housing, clothing, transportation, food, etc.

So, in the end the author is basically saying "Quit your grousing, middle- class drones, you may still be struggling to house and feed yourselves (just like the good old recession days of 1982) but you can get the latest, spiffy cell phones and HDTVs as the rich. So, what are you complaining about?"

Clueless. So, it bears saying again: One of the clearest indicators of a civilization's downfall is income inequality (not that it exists at all but the sheer magnitude of it). Prosperity should be floating all boats to a degree but when only the gold-plated yachts are rising, we're all in danger.

<comment><USER21> Where does this idea that income inequality indicates the downfall of a civilisation come from? It doesn't seem to be historically true, given the vast income inequality in, say, Regency England, or pretty much any part of classical Roman history after the early Republic, or, hell, pretty much any civilisation ever that lasted any amount of time had some kind of aristocracy with all the inequality that entails...

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> The article points out a 3 reason why the "flat-wage of the middle class" idea is a myth:

1\. CPI underestimating product improvements. 2\. Increase in fringe benefits. 3\. Influx of lesser skilled workers.

Product improvements and fringe benefits effect both middle and upper class living standard equally. These two improvements would increase both upper and middle classes equally, so I can't see how these would make middle income workers better of relative to upper income workers.

The third point, an influx of lesser skilled workers "women and immigrants" as the article puts it, does not change the fact that the middle class's wages are stagnent, it just is a changing of demographics.

<comment><USER23> _The third point, an influx of lesser skilled workers "women and immigrants" as the article puts it, does not change the fact that the middle class's wages are stagnent, it just is a changing of demographics._

But it does change a key consequence of the claim that middle class wages are stagnant. That claim is often used to argue that "the middle class is no better off"; but if the stagnant wages are due to changing demographics, then all the _individual people_ in the middle class may in fact _be_ better off. Some used to make the average wage and now make more; some used to make nothing at all or made the average wage in a much poorer country, and are now making less than the average wage here, which is still an improvement for them. The point is that "average wage" is a poor measure of how individual people are actually doing, since it really reflects changing demographics, not changes in individual fortunes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> The one thing seems to have been omitted is housing costs? I am in the UK and housing costs have risen very sharply thus eliminating any other reductions on pricing. This is one area the current generation is much worse off, rents are high, and purchase prices even higher. My parents with a single relatively low income could afford a house, my sibling and his partner with two reasonable incomes can't afford a one bedroom apartment.

Some parts of the UK do have cheaper housing but with good reason, low levels of employment.

Interested to hear the US and wider perspectives.

<comment><USER25> In the US, housing values have crashed since the bubble burst in early 2007. Americans have a bigger problem securing mortgages than they do finding an affordable home.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> There have been a lot of posts to HN, including submissions of articles with a point of view contrary to this article, claiming that the current generation of young people are "screwed" or the like. Both of my two older sons have netbook computers and mobile phones (not the Apple brand) even though our family income is solidly in the range described by the article. My second son recently mail-ordered computer parts and assembled a new desktop PC for my wife, which is quite a blessing. The simple point of fact is that young people today have opportunity to enjoy goods and services that were unavailable and unimaginable to their parents at the same age. All four of my children have had opportunity to obtain good education that prepares them for productive adult life--my oldest son is already working full-time as a programmer for a start-up. We have spent out of pocket more than most American families to pursue educational opportunities for them at the primary and secondary level of education, largely through homeschooling, but we can afford what we did with a middle-class income. We live in a nice house (rented, in our case) in a peaceful, crime-free neighborhood, and travel as we have occasion to travel. Our lifestyle has improved over the lifestyle I grew up with.

As a younger Baby Boomer, I am prime political fodder for appeals to "protect Social Security." Yet I support entitlement reform, even at my short-term detriment, because I care about my children. I do agree that young people today need to have older people like me drain less of the money they earn through work to fund entitlements paid to me. Rather, I support reforms that raise the retirement age and age of eligibility for other old-age benefits and put more of the economy's money in the hands of working people who can best decide how to spend it, funding entitlement programs on a more actuarially sound basis. Understanding the basic facts about the economy is an important first step for hackers and other entrepreneurs to have a business environment in which they can innovate and invest. Current policies are unsustainable and anyway are based on false factual premises. Americans can buy more of what they want for fewer hours of work than ever before in human history. Hackers can keep right on innovating, because Americans will never feel like they have enough. History makes that clear.

</comment><comment><USER26> "First, the CPI overestimates inflation by underestimating the value of improvements in product quality and variety"

As others have pointed out this is very debatable. Especially since CPI is corrected for that already. Also consider certain goods have gone down in quality due to being mass produced instead of hand tailored. "Fresh" produce are more available but often old and stale because they come from far away. Inflation is overestimated on these types of items.

"health benefits, pensions, paid leaves and the rest now amount to an average of almost 31% of total compensation for all civilian workers"

Health care is costlier, securing a pension is costlier (due to low investment returns), more paid leaves are probably due to both adults working in a family which is unsustainable in times of family crisis. This is related to:

"Third and most important, the average hourly wage is held down by the great increase of women and immigrants into the workforce over the past three decades"

So let me get this straight, previously a single income was enough to sustain a family of often 5 or more and now you need two incomes for a family of only 3 or 4 and this dude thinks that makes people feel richer?? Also consider that one reason people don't have 5 kids anymore is that they wouldn't be able to afford them and can't take care of them because both parents have to be working.

"spending by households on many of modern life's "basics" fell from 53% of disposable income in 1950 to 44% in 1970 to 32% today." Is that for median households or is this number skewed by including the super rich in the average? I'm suspicious that this isn't specified. Also this is a complex number with lots of caveats. For a single earner family (remember this used to be sufficient), is this still true?

"Before airlines were deregulated, for example, commercial jet travel was a luxury that ordinary Americans seldom enjoyed."

The fact that technology has made air travel's costs more in line with other forms of travel, doesn't make a person richer. Sure it gives that person more options, and some quality of life improvements if he or she chooses these options. However, if a median worker could afford only a few train tickets a year in 1980 he still can't afford many more train or plane tickets today with his dwindling salary.

<comment><USER27> Being able to "afford" n children all depends on your definition of the word. Consumption per child is much higher now than it has ever been.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> tl;dr: the consumer price index only makes it _look_ like the middle class is suffering. To wit:

1) They have access to a higher quality of goods. 2) Don't forget deductions for health care and 2 weeks of vacation! 3) We pay women and minorities less, and since they've been entering the workforce in bigger numbers, it only _looks_ like white males are being paid the same since the 60s.

Seriously?! Can we please keep politics off the front page? Or else we'll all be subjected to countless polemic summaries like this one and who wants that?

(But honestly, fuck this article.)

</comment><comment><USER29> What about political influence? Irrespective of how much you can buy, if dollars equal political influence, which is not far from wrong, people in the middle class now have less control over their lives and those of their children.

</comment><comment><USER30> WSJ is doubling down on the crazy talk. Here's their idea of a representative demographic: [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732368960457822...](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323689604578220132665726040.html#project%3DWEALTH0105%26articleTabs%3Dinteractive).

</comment><comment><USER31> wsj is own by Murdoc and anything that dude own seems to be fills with lies and bias. They got flak for it over in England, I believe.

</comment><comment><USER32> In the early 1970s, WSJ writers could have written an article pointing at how much better the middle class in the US had done over the past 40 years. Now they have to resort to this sophistry. When they admit the average hourly wage of nonsupervisory workers has remained about the same, what that actually means it is lower than it was in the early 1970s, adjusted for inflation.

So one point they make is workers are paying more to their HMOs than ever, so the % of fringe benefits to wages has increased. This is proof against a stagnant middle class?

Then that a one income household can not cut it any more is mentioned. What does this have to do with a stagnant middle class? "The U.S. economy was [and is] flexible and strong". No kidding, I can see GNP going up as well. This has nothing to do with a stagnant (falling, actually) middle class.

The mention of 32% of disposable income - again, money is going to HMOs that went to nicer housing, cars, clothes etc. Also, I don't know what NBER report they're citing, those numbers look much lower than other reports I have seen. To believe this you would have to believe the middle class today has 68% play money with the 32% covering housing, cars and essentials.

"Joe Six-Pack when making a similar trip on a commercial jetliner. But unlike his 1970s counterpart, Joe routinely travels the same great distances in roughly the same time as do the world's wealthiest tycoons."

I know many people in their 20s and 30s with middle class jobs, many of them have never been on an airline ever. that airplanes have been improved means little to them.

The article sounds like just a lot of sophistry. The fact is that inflation- adjusted hourly wages are lower today than they were in the early 1970s. Even if you don't give a flying fuck about the average American, it means there are less consumers to buy new commodities coming out. They can go into debt to get it, but we all just saw what happened when the whole system is gamed so that these now poorer middle class people can buy houses with sub-prime mortgages.

Personally I don't have a Robert Reich/Paul Krugman/Keynesian view of this. My personal view is the economic system has much greater essential underlying weaknesses that little Keynesian measures won't fix over the long run. Which is just to say that just because I think Boudreaux and Perry are wrong doesn't mean I think Reich's suggested minor tweaks to the economy would work either.

<comment><USER9> _In the early 1970s, WSJ writers could have written an article pointing at how much better the middle class in the US had done over the past 40 years._

You really think you'd rather be the median income 25 year old in 1973 vs. 2013? It's not sophistry to point out that today's median 25 year old has massive advantages in health, education, technology and basic quality of life over his 1973 equivalent. The real average wage captures none of this improvement, which is the point of the piece.

<comment><USER33> What about happiness? Hope for the future? Ability to have your spouse raise the kids at home while you earned enough to pay for a house and car?

And the idea that life expectancy is what counts is absurd. 79 years of fighting for jobs where you're worked like mad fighting every week to stay out of debt while trying to get your kids some semblance of education in shittier and shittier school systems sure sounds a hell of a lot nicer than the past because what, iPhones exist?

<comment><USER9> I think you are looking at the past with rose-tinted glasses if you think "hope for the future" was on a real win streak in the '70s. (See: Vietnam, Watergate, Arab oil embargo, stagflation...)

Also, in the '70s, it wasn't the "spouse" raising the kids at home, it was the wife. The huge increase in available roles for women is another thing not captured by the average real wage (and as the piece points out, probably had a negative impact on it).

<comment><USER33> You are definitely correct. My post was a little snarky and written way too quickly to get any real point across.

My real point is that, regardless of whether or not wage stagnation has occurred, the "middle class" is not in a good position. Median household income is $52,000. You can survive on that while raising 2 kids, paying rent or a mortgage, and paying for a car if you are smart about it. But you aren't very well positioned to get ahead and you certainly aren't in a position to have a couple of smartphones, premium cable tv on a big flat screen tv, with the newest computers, etc. like we are taught to aspire to.

Yes, there is more tech, better healthcare, etc., but your money goes a lot less far than it did when you could have a single worker earning enough to afford the "same" (relatively) overall quality of life. It's not a perfect comparison by any means, but saying wage stagnation doesn't exist and therefore we shouldn't care about it seems utterly bizarre when you look at what most of the nation has to live on.

I just can't wrap my head around how anyone can look at this article and especially that horrible infographic that the WSJ published and think anything except how out of touch and frankly stupid people are about the reality of our collective situation.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How do you know what you want? - <AUTHOR>

Randy Komisar (catchy last name huh, do you think is his real last name? lol) talks about "How Do You Find Your Passion and How Do You Pursue It?" on http://academicearth.org/lectures/how-do-you-find-your-passion-and-pursue-it
I haven't yet heard the ending because the streaming keeps going dead.
I am in my last year of university and this question, how do you know what you want is so very perplexing. You see I believe that if you really want something, anything, as improbable it may seem, you always achieve it. Therefore to know what I want was the starting point for me towards striving to achieve it.
Anyway to get to the question of how do you know what you want and how do you know what you want to do with your life. I have been thinking about it over the whole year and I have concluded....
You see we always hear people talking of doing something you love, however we love doing many things, which should I focus on. How does one know that they want to do law instead of being a scientist unless he tries both fields. Trying everything however may not be possible. So I have this theory that people simply chose something either because of the circumstances, through blind faith, like mini miny..... or just go with it and once such a choice is made then they grow to love it. Hence it is an acquired taste rely, I mean I have read somewhere that our mind does not care what we do as long as we do something and we don't bore ourself.
With my mate yesterday we were talking about peer pressure in respect to clubbing and drinking excesivly. I put it to him that everything is peer pressure. Society provides us things to do and we are pressurised either by society, i.e. adverts, or by our own self to escape boredom. Society provides us with the choices, we simply pick one, wanting, or passion, perhaps has nothing to do with it.
In the spirit of discussion, what are your thoughts on how do you know what you want? <comment><USER2> One trick is to watch what you do. If you keep inexplicably being drawn to something when other people wouldn't be, you probably like it.

You can also try standing apart from yourself and just watching what makes you happy. That's a bit complicated because your happiness is usually a function of the "trailing average" of what you've been doing lately. E.g. if you're happy having a beer in the evening, is it simply because you like beer, or because you like having a beer after having gotten something done that day?

<comment><USER3> Exactly... and therein lies the difficulty: "standing apart from yourself." I guess that's why vocalizing your thoughts aloud to a confidant can help you "see" your thoughts outside your head.

<comment><USER4> That's why writing a blog is such a great idea. If you keep one not for marketing but just for personal thoughts, you find that you learn more about yourself than you'd expect. (I'm nearing my blog's one-year anniversary, and I find that writing in it has really solidified a lot of my views, among other things.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> All I can offer here is a personal observation:

Many times in my life when I've asked people for advice in choosing between several options, I've found myself secretly hoping they'd guide me to a certain option... hmm...

When I was a teenager, I'd ask my dad for advice and find myself asking leading questions and almost arguing to get him to advise me to pick a certain option. He would get annoyed and end the conversation with "if you already know the answer, why are you asking me?"

As I got older and our conversations got calmer, he would often end with "well it sounds like you already know what you want to do."

I find that when asking for advice (or venting about a tough decision), this pattern persists.

Now I try to have that conversation with myself, knowing I should trust my intuition. It saves a lot of time and frustration! Then, when I ask for advice, I'm actually ready to listen to it.

</comment><comment><USER5> I think you have already honed in on the basics: "You have to actually do it". If it seems like there are too many things to try and they all look appealing, you just need to understand yourself better and self observation will help you there.

You are wrong to suggest that we grow to like anything life forces us to do. If you have an analytical mind, a job flipping burgers or pressing buttons as a tester is never going to satisfy you. You might be able to change the job to something you like more (e.g. write test scripts) but that's a whole other topic.

Some additional things I have learnt that may be useful for you are: (1) There is no one thing predestined to be your calling in life, there are several things you may like. (2) If you really want something, you'll usually get it _eventually_ or _find something that you like better_.

It is useful to set a long term goal based on what you know you like so far and at least initially, while you are still in college, it is useful to state it broadly but don't tie yourself to a specific way of getting to that goal.

For example, I know I enjoy coding, technology, business and teaching. There are several combinations of these that could end up being my calling. The specific image I may have in mind is to work as an engineer / technical entrepreneur now and become a teacher later in life, but I am sure there are other configurations where I would be able to satisfy all of my urges (e.g. a venture capitalist who focuses on technology and guides entrepreneurs and writes code for fun a.k.a pg).

Your short term or "localized in time" options are always going to be restricted by your circumstances. You pick the best out of those options based partly on your understanding of yourself which will evolve with time (use pg's suggestions above/below) and (rarely) on your current needs. (e.g. You may have to choose a higher paying job to repay some loans even though you like the other one) but if you keep your long term goal in sight and don't lose hope on that, you'll be able to steer your way to it even if you get diverted temporarily by short term needs.

</comment><comment><USER6> My own experience and as i've seen with others, is asking a question of "what are you reading for fun / what magazines are you buying?". An example, i used to have a flatmate that work day-job as software tester, but, the funny thing is, he never read anything about technology. All he read is poker. News, tricks, techniques. All are pokers. It's so apparent that the passion for poker draw him from other things.

However, while others can see it, from my own personal experience, i found it's not easy to convince yourself regarding what you want. I was lucky that i have exploited almost majority of the choices that i can get my hands on when i was 20 (and trying to figure out the same question). In a big divisions, i tried business, network-marketing, share, property and employment. But, always found life is the most interesting in business.

Combine with the first point, i always found myself reading something techy whether it's magazine, google reader (and, i seriously don't mind with Sedgewick's algorithms books for bedside reading) clearly makes me realize that something about business + technology is what i really want. That's why i do what i am doing, tech-business. :)

But, yes, agree that you need to figure out this question and need to be convinced heartily. Keep trying until you find it out. Good luck!

</comment><comment><USER7> What appeals to you will change over time. You're sounding like you want to make one decision that will last your whole life. There isn't one. There can't be one. The teachers at your uni have probably pointed out that you'll have 5 or so completely different careers during your working lifetime.

 _I believe that if you really want something, anything, as improbable it may seem, you always achieve it._

There are a lot of people who want immortality. A lot. And they're not going to get it. Everyone is going to get old and die.

I really really wanted to design integrated circuits. When I graduated with my BSEE, there was a recession and all the major players in the IC business were laying off tens of thousands of engineers. So I ended up at GM. And when I tried to get into the IC fab part of that division, my machiavellian manager ended up pushing me out of the company completely (if I transferred, he lost the "headcount" permanently, but if I quit or was fired, he could replace me).

Desire doesn't get you want you want.

<comment><USER8> Did you give up?

<comment><USER7> My _ex_ gave me an ultimatum: we move to FL, or we break up (she hated IN). We moved to FL, and about 10 months later it was over. By my estimate, doing that cost me about $500k over the last 20 years.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> i do what i know i enjoy doing until i don't enjoy doing it anymore. lather, rinse, repeat.

it usually is just that simple. your list of things you enjoy doing will shift as you grow, experience, and learn. you're wasting your own time and energy worrying about the "what if"s. either give something new a shot, or continue doing what you're doing.

"what if i'd like being a scientist better" or "what if i'd like starting a startup better". either go find out, or stop worrying about it, because its wasteful on many levels.

its been working out for me so far.

</comment><comment><USER10> This is a very interesting question with no possible answer. That is due to the fact that every single minute what you think you want is changing.

What could help is to make a distinction between the material things we want (house, cars...) and the things and the other things we want (a family...).

As an exercise I sat out to write down the things (material) I convinced myself I have to have before I die. To my surprise my list include between 6 to 10 items and the total cost did not surpass $200k-$250k.

I then realized that I was working too hard while what I wanted (or think I want) could be easily achieved.

Writing what you believe you want is a great exercise. You may be surprise that what you think you want on a daily basis is very different from what you really want inside.</comment>


Why Young Americans Are Having Less Sex - <AUTHOR> https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/02/08/why-young-americans-having-less-sex-216953 <comment><USER2> I know that there's a few people who disagree with the article but I found it hit close to home.

I'm a young(ish) guy that's tall, fit and has a great career that pays well. On a (superficial level at least) I have a lot going for me in attracting women.

Yet I have no interest in pursuing sex or relationships.

Why would I bother going out and attempt to have conversations with women who have nothing in common with me.

Why have a relationship with a woman when it's taxing physically, mentally and emotionally?

There's so many other things I can do with my time that is much easier and more rewarding.

\---

After writing this I can't help but feel that my experience of relationships isn't typical.

Does anyone agree or disagree with me?

<comment><USER3> I think some people find relationships "taxing" and that's okay. But I think working in tech makes it harder for men, who would otherwise enjoy relationships, to find women with whom they have things "in common." I got married not that long after leaving engineering for law. My wife, who is also a lawyer, and I talk shop constantly, attend professional events together, etc.

<comment><USER4> > But I think working in tech makes it harder for men

Obviously anecdotal - but yea. I'm an engineer in America and for the entirety of my career I have worked with 95%+ men. In my office right now it's 25 men and one woman who is non-technical.

I simply just don't interact with women unless it's professional, within mutual friend groups, at the bar, or in the dating scene. I won't initiate in polite small-talk conversations out of fear my friendliness could be misconstrued as flirting, and as a single 30-something guy I'm terrified of making someone feel uncomfortable.

This all leads to a lack of confidence in non-professional interactions to the point where I am legitimately shocked/concerned when a woman randomly initiates conversation with me (as seldom as that happens).

<comment><USER2> I feel you. I'm 31 and am exactly the same way with women.

It's lead to the exact same conclusions as you - a lack of self confidence in a wide variety of situations. This turns into overcompensation and having bad interactions. That all reinforces the lack of self confidence.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> You should prepare to roll your eyes after the first page break. Once the author starts speculating on the cause it turns into an articulate old-man rant about kids these days.

"Those darn cellular-telephones, porn-ography, unwed couples, and consent. Back in my day we didn't have consent and we liked it!"

Don't get me wrong, the article is well written and cited, but it seems to be suffering from the fallacy of trying to draw conclusions based on things that you can easily get statistics on rather than admitting that you can't boil down human relationships into a few vectors. I'm prepared to have my experience challenged but I can't imagine any young adult thinking this analysis is anything but funny.

<comment><USER6> Most of the article reminded me of this: [https://xkcd.com/1227/](https://xkcd.com/1227/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Getting to intimately know people you believe you have nothing in common with can be an amazing, transforming experience. It's one of the ways to grow as a person.

</comment><comment><USER8> I believe it is the over prescription of anti depresents and other medications that lower libido.

</comment><comment><USER9> Dude, when I moved to the US from India, I thought every guy in the US had a GF and was getting it regularly. Boy, was I in for a surprise. May be it's all the media/TV/Movies that made me think like that.

At least in SF, I see a lot of single men. I myself have been finding dating hard here (may be because I'm a foreigner), which translates to pretty irregular sex, but my friends in South East Asia are getting laid pretty regularly.

</comment><comment><USER10> My first thought about anything like this... Quality of the data set...

This is based on self-reported data. Is it not also worth asking if it has become more socially acceptable to admit to having sex less often (or not at all)?

Just as it probably has become more socially acceptable to not be in a relationship...

</comment><comment><USER11> My read on this article is that the author of this article is a young American having less sex.

</comment><comment><USER12> Speak for yourself, Politico!

</comment><comment><USER13> Porn and feminism</comment>


Ask HN: How to quit a job - <AUTHOR> So I am in a dilemma, at least in my heart and head.
I ran a consulting business for a few years, until last year when I found that my co-founder wasn't really up for it and we had been suffering a lot in recent 2 years. It was getting to a point where it was super frustrating and I kinda started hating it.
Eventually, in May last year, I pulled the plug and we parted ways. We had some clients that we wanted to wrap up our work for, so it took us till August that year to clear things. Meanwhile, since I had a family to support, I decided to get another job to cover my bills. This job was done remotely (most of the time) so I could spend time with family and not stress about fighting traffic etc.
Now, around November last year, I started playing with an idea on the side. Started to hack a solution for it in evenings, nights and weekends. It kinda took off around Feb this  year where I am making some recurring revenue (nothing major, but good enough for a side project).
So now I am thinking that if I were to focus 100% of my energy on this, maybe I can go from side-project to company status. However, for that I would have to quit my "day job".
So my questions:
1. How should I quit my current job where they don't feel used?
2. Should I jump into a startup so soon after my bad consulting company experience? <comment><USER2> My rule of thumb is, if I see a coworker fired for no reason, I will give them no reason when I quit.

I also budget things out so that I am not surprised to be escorted from the building, with the resulting loss of two weeks (possibly) income.

</comment><comment><USER3> Just being honest and giving them 2-3 weeks of notice is probably enough.

You could also ask about going part-time for a little while, that may turn out to be a win for everyone - you still have a bit more income, and they can take longer to transition your knowledge and workload to someone new.

</comment><comment><USER4> 1\. How should I quit my current job where they don't feel used?

You just quit. We live in a capitalist system, not a communist one. You are allowed to "desert" from your position anytime you want.

2\. Should I jump into a startup so soon after my bad consulting company experience?

No.

<comment><USER5> > You just quit. We live in a capitalist system, not a communist one. You are > allowed to "desert" from your position anytime you want.

or even stronger: your relationship as an employee continues while both parties - the employer and employee - benefit from it and want it to continue. if one or both parties does not want the relationship to continue, it ends.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Just tell them you are quitting and give two weeks notice. It is at will employment on both sides, this is perfectly normal.

<comment><AUTHOR> Should I tell them that I am quitting to start a business or leave it as a personal decision?

<comment><USER7> Honestly I would tell them that you're quitting to start a business, but this may depend on your relationship with the manager. You may be able to work something out where you're working part-time, taking a leave of absence or potentially become an early customer. Caveats: 1) Your business is not competing with theirs 2) Does not use any of their IP, 3) You did not use their equipment to make the prototype, 4)You did not sign any legal documents assigning inventions to the company while not on company time

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > since I had a family to support...

Assuming you still need the income, keep hustling at both gigs Vaynerchuk style. Spend the next 12 months proving your model and building up cash reserves.

<comment><USER9> I second this . . . you have a perfect opportunity to hustle to provide extra income/stability for your family and building a longer runway.

While you're working remote for your day job listen to the archives for StartUpsForTheRestOfUs.com (if you haven't already).

Good luck with your new business.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Just be straightforward and let them know you have another opportunity elsewhere. They might offer you more or let you go. I had an experience, where I had feared letting the tyrant boss know I was putting in my 2 weeks, but I went ahead and just got through with it. Best decision of my life. You can read all about it here if you want: [http://www.confessionsoftheprofessions.com/the- opportunity/](http://www.confessionsoftheprofessions.com/the-opportunity/)

</comment><comment><USER11> Have you considered consulting on the side while launching the startup? I know folks who have successfully done this.

The key is to set a very high rate, to ensure that (1) your time is not fully occupied with consulting, and (2) the time that you do spend consulting is very financially rewarding. And depending on the elasticity of demand for your services, you may find that you can make 70% of your full-time consulting wage, but work only 30% of the hours.

</comment><comment><USER12> Best to explain to your boss exactly why you are quitting and give the official two weeks notice or if you are critical for a delivery even longer - this way you'll part on happy terms and wont burn any bridges, at the end your boss should feel happy for you... If for some reason your boss would not understand, then there is no point of worrying about this relationship anyway...

</comment><comment><USER13> If you're not in a huge hurry, give your employer enough time to hire your replacement and to allow you to train them. This will give you more income and you will leave on very very very good terms. That's how I quit my last job, and it took three months. Three years later they brought me in for 3 months as a consultant.</comment>