Sorry, Folks, Rich People Don't Create The Jobs - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/rich-people-dont-create-jobs-2014-6 <comment><USER2> Nobody creates the jobs, they exist to be discovered. If you adopt the viewpoint that other people create jobs for you then your fate is not in your own hands.

People want things. If you can create something that other people want and they can create something that you want, you both have a job.

<comment><USER3> You missed a key qualifier: if you can create something that other people want _and can afford_.

<comment><USER2> They can afford it if they can create something of value that you're willing to accept in return. If they can't then that is the real problem. You have to ask why they can't create enough wealth to trade for the things they want / need.

<comment><USER3> They can't because there are huge factories in China that can produce widgets cheaper than they can, because there are farmers with million dollar combine harvesters that can produce food cheaper than they can, et cetera.

We live in an industrial economy. Most people can create more value for the economy by working for somebody else and/or don't have the safety net that allows them to take the risks necessary to start their own business.

<comment><USER2> Software developers make $100+ an hour. The jobs are there for people willing to adapt to them. You can't just wait to be handed a job that matches your current abilities.

<comment><USER4> _A few_ software developers make that kind of money. I certainly don't. There is not an infinite demand for high-paid programmers.

<comment><USER5> I doubt there is ANY employer demand for high-paid programmers.

The demand from an employer perspective is for highly-skilled programmers. If a proven highly-skilled programmer was willing to happily work for minimum wage employers would be lining up for miles to hire that person.

The highly-skilled workers are the ones demanding to be highly-paid.

If flipping burgers was more difficult then there would be a smaller supply of qualified workers, those workers could demand to be paid more, and the employers would have to pay up or risk getting crushed by their competition.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It will be interesting to try to see what happens in Seattle after passing the $15 minimum wage. It will take years to fully implement, which will mask the cause/effect, unfortunately.

I do this thought experiment. If I write every person in America a check for one million dollars, who have I actually helped? In my thought experiment, the prices of everything will instantly rise to compensate for the increased wealth, and everybody will be exactly where they are now, just with more zeros on all their bills and paychecks.

I suspect that rent prices in Seattle, which are already high, will rise very rapidly, to relieve these workers of their extra income. That the wage increase will take place over a few years time is unfortunate, as this effect will be deniable by those who choose to deny it. But this is what my gut is telling me will happen. So, amusingly, it will be those evil 1% landlords, who will actually win, not the minimum wage workers, who will be exactly where they are now.

<comment><USER7> If you're going to do a thought experiment you need to think a little deeper. Most home owners would be able to pay off their mortgages and own their homes. All student debts would be easily paid off, and then some. Much inequality (outside the 1%) would vanish temporarily, since the difference between 1 million and 1 million and a small amount of savings isn't that much.

People would try to spend their money, resulting in much more demand, bottlenecks, and shortages. Of course this leads to inflation, but it also means the recession is over. Businesses would run out of everything and try to expand to try to meet supply, but their suppliers would raise prices too, maybe too high to make a profit. It would be a chaotic situation and people on fixed incomes would be screwed once the money runs out. It's hard to plan a business under these circumstances, but I'm sure some people would be smart enough to figure out a good plan.

So this is not "back where we started." It's a big reset that changes just about everything and probably a big disaster if it's sprung onto people without warning.

On the other hand, if properly planned and at a smaller scale, it could have some good effects. Giving an equal amount of money to everyone would work better than giving it to banks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> For anyone interested in learning more about the growing inequality gap in America, I recommend watching the documentary "Inequality For All" ([http://imdb.com/title/tt2215151/](http://imdb.com/title/tt2215151/)).

<comment><USER9> I have not seen the movie but it is laughable that almost without fail the voices for "equality" are those who are quite rich themselves. Just look at the cast for that movie.

<comment><USER10> And if they were poor, they'd just be people jealous of the success of others. Ad-hominems are an easy way to sidestep discussion.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The line of reasoning of this article can be applied to all things and by extrapolating out the logic it becomes evident how absurd the logic really is. Examples:

1) Mr. Gates did not create Microsoft... someone else built the garage he started in; OR his parents created him and therefore they created Microsoft (or an infinite number of other rationales)

2) The engine malfunctioning did not cause the airplane to crash, gravity caused the plane to crash

<comment><USER11> No I don't think that's quite right. He very clearly is saying that the entrepreneur alone is not responsible for the success and growth of a company because they also need customers and employees and etc etc.

As for your plane crash analogy, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_of_events_(aeronautics)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_of_events_\(aeronautics\)).

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Me, I'm a wage slave, but I do have a friend who put up his savings, borrowed money from a bank and built and opened a car wash. He hired a dozen or so young men and women who staff it, while he is an owner/manager.

He has been successful -- he judged the demand for a car wash correctly. Probably not a %1'er, but as a local small business owner is able to live a comfortable middle class life.

Certainly without customers and without the bank he could not have succeeded, but I think it's ludicrous to say the 'economy' created the jobs. There are some agents within the economy who 1) recognize opportunities for profitable activity and 2) direct resources these opportunities. I think it's reasonable to describe these people as job creators.

<comment><USER13> But it's certainly reasonable to assume most of his customers are middle class individuals with enough discretionary income to spend on occasional car washes. The articles point is not that your friend doesn't deserve credit in creating jobs, but the initial creation is only one part. Sustaining those jobs requires sustaining the customers and to do that they must maintain enough discretionary income to spend on car washes. With the income disparity ever increasing it's easy to see the middle class fading and as that happens so shall your friends car wash business.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I think here there's some truth to both propositions (why are people so black or white in their thinking when the world is always shades of grey?)

Clearly without demand (consumers with money) you can't create jobs in the economy. Just as clearly, without entrepreneurs willing to take the risk and put in the effort, and the investors who fund them, you can't create those jobs either. So the truth of the matter is that economics is complex, and you need plucky entrepreneurs, wealthy investors, and consumers with lots of disposable income to create jobs, among a whole host of motivations, cultural and societal influences, international trade and agreements, infrastructure, even healthcare, and other human factors.

<comment><USER3> The analogy the original article used was that of entrepreneurs and investors to seeds: a seed is a vital component to the growing of trees, but far from sufficient.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I wonder how many of these "Job Creators" really believes that the wealthy create jobs, or if they are fully aware it's BS?

<comment><USER16> As far as I am to understand, most of the 1%'ers wealth is tied up in investments.

And this is why they consider themselves the job creators. They invest in all sorts of companies and markets and without the initial investment to start a company, there wouldn't be anything for the middle-class to purchase with their middle class salary, not to say no one to pay that salary either.

If they just bought gold and hid it in a vault, then I expect them not to consider themselves job creators.

<comment><USER17> It's precisely why high income taxes on the wealthy should exist. With high income tax, they have an incentive to invest more money than they keep (rather than hand it over to the government). With low taxation, they can take a small hit and hoard whatever amount they feel like they should. Not taxing the "job creators" stops making them "job creators". Furthermore, keeping wages low prevents regular workers from ever becoming "job creators".

<comment><USER13> The wealth disparity that is increasing is mostly due to investments and an extremely low capital gains tax. We can't just increase the income tax because the wealthiest 1% probably don't even have much of an income...they have capital gains from investments. Yes, the income tax needs to be increased (or actually more brackets need to be created) but we also need to raise the capital gains tax for higher amounts of capital gains.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> The threshold for the 1% is "centi-millionaire," eh? I'm apparently substantially more baller than I realized.

<comment><USER19> I guess you, like me, initially read it as an SI prefix, and were a bit confused about someone with a net worth of $10,000 being touted as a one- percenter... I mentally rewrote it as hecto-millionnaire and it made more sense.

But I guess a centipede doesn't have a hundredth of a foot, and it's not like millionnaire/billionnaire follows an SI naming scheme in the first place. Maybe we should introduce a new scale:

megalonnaire

gigalonnaire

...

Successful tech entrepreneurs could rather aspire to becoming binary prefixed mebilonnaires or gibilonnaires.

<comment><USER20> Hecto[1] would have been a better choice for a prefix.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hecto-](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hecto-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> _Unlike Hanauer and other 1%-ers, middle class people spend almost every penny they make, and this spending becomes revenue for companies started and owned by people like Hanauer._

The same is true for the rich as well. Much of what they earn is consumed directly. But for anything that's not, it's surely not being hidden under a mattress (they didn't get to be rich by losing out to inflation). Instead, these people are investing it or saving it.

If they just save it in a bank account, then the bank is (less the fractional reserve portion) loaning it back out to somebody else, probably providing the means for a non-rich-person to finance a house or a car or a new business. That is, it's being spent by the person taking out the loan.

If they invest the money, then it's providing the capital for business, which is even better. That business might spend it (there it is again - spending) to buy new machinery, or they might expand operations and hire more workers, etc.

Any way you slice it, other than the part that's held back in fractional reserve, the large incomes of the rich _do_ get spent. Either they spend directly, or they let someone else use it for their own spending.

<comment><USER22> Depending on what you mean by "spending". I see spending as an irreversible process, where someone actually decides how to convert resources to products. You could say the more you do that, the bigger the economy.

However, rich people don't engage in this sort of spending as much. Lot of their "spending" is in reality just circulation of money through rent extraction. And it's important for them to do that, because that allows them to keep their power. For instance, if they loan it to a person, that person becomes dependent on them.

Your idea is based on flawed premise that one has only two rational options what to do with money - invest (in a narrow sense, to make actual decision how to convert one resource to another) or consume. In reality, there is a third option, which is similar to saving, that is investing money in power grabbing and rent extraction. While saving doesn't give you an advantage to other players, the rent extraction may.

This was already explained by Marx long time ago, when he described the capitalist as someone who wants to create more money from money he has through profit from investment. And more recently this was explained by Piketty, that you can have a situation in economy where rich people try to "invest" into rent extraction and not producing more goods or services.

<comment><USER21> Be that as it may, it's not the claim the article was making. The claim was that rich people don't lead to growth because much of their money sits idle, and thus cannot "trickle down" by being used in the economy.

The moral effects that you outline aside, you seem to agree that the portion of their money that the rich don't spend themselves, they're allowing to be spent by another person. Thus while you may dislike the moral implications, you seem to agree with my assessment that the claims of the article are incorrect.

<comment><USER22> > you seem to agree that the portion of their money that the rich don't spend > themselves, they're allowing to be spent by another person

Not really. If I give you 1000$ it's a different thing than when I just lend you 1000$. In both cases you have discretion to spend it, but in the latter case, you have much less freedom, because you need to return it back (and more).

What I am saying is that economy as a whole can store a large portion of money in such contracts, not really producing much of anything (because of the constraints placed to the borrower). Still, it's a rational thing to do for rich people because it allows to keep them power. So in this sense, the money are "idling" \- by circulating around in contracts that have to be honored.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I think it's plenty arguable that rich people create jobs.

For example: if rich people don't create jobs, then how can it be their fault that there are not enough jobs? If jobs really come from the middle class, why hasn't the middle class created more of them? It would be in their self- interest to do so.

Arguing that wages for middle class jobs should go up raises the question of where that wage money should come from. The answer is capital, i.e. rich people.

Societies without rich people are also societies that struggle to create well- paying jobs. The USSR and China attempted to eliminate rich people by adopting a communist economy. What happened is that the people in the government were the only ones who got rich, and the government was the only source of jobs. That is not a coincidence.

Since the end of the 20th Century, both Russia and China have relaxed government control of capital, and the result has been an increase in both rich people and well-paying jobs in those countries.

Finally, consider technological innovation; a rich source of job creation. It is created by investment, sometimes seemingly far-fetched or speculative investment. Google and the iPhone are two examples of products that were not guaranteed success, and were even dismissed by some industry experts when released. Each has directly created thousands of jobs and indirectly enabled at least tens of thousands more in supporting or related fields.

But before there was Google or the iPhone, there were rich people writing checks to the people who envisioned them.

BTW this is NOT an argument against a higher minimum wage. In fact I think the questions of "where jobs come from" and "what is the ideal minimum wage" are only very loosely connected.

edits: spellings

<comment><USER24> Holy smokes, where to begin...

> if rich people don't create jobs, then how can it be their fault that there > are not enough jobs?

No one is blaming rich people. They are blaming the system (aspects of it, at least) that we have collectively created.

>If jobs really come from the middle class, why hasn't the middle class created more of them?

Much like fire needs heat, oxygen, and a fuel a successful business needs entrepreneurs, capital, and demand. If the middle class doesn't have disposable income that limits available capital _and_ demand for creating and sustaining a business by middle class entrepreneurs.

>Arguing that wages for middle class jobs should go up raises the question of where that wage money should come from. The answer is capital, i.e. rich people.

Creating value creates money. That's how this whole thing works. It doesn't have to come from rich people, it comes, ultimately, from profit.

>The USSR and China attempted to eliminate rich people by adopting a communist economy.

You are jumping a bit far, there. I don't think anyone is advocating communism.

>But before there was Google or the iPhone, there were rich people writing checks to the people who envisioned them.

Capital doesn't have to come from rich people. Just as centralization of economic control is inefficient and ultimately harmful in communist systems you cite, it is just as destructive in a capitalist system.

<comment><USER23> The terminology makes it very difficult to have a productive discussion. "Rich people" are not rich the way that Asian people are Asian. A rich person is simply a person who has the legal right to direct large amounts of wealth.

Conversely, every piece of wealth has at least one person who has the legal right to direct it.

So when you make a statement like "It doesn't have to come from rich people, it comes, ultimately, from profit," it's a somewhat meaningless distinction because every piece of profit is controlled by a person somewhere. A rich person is just a person who has the legal right to direct large amounts of profit (i.e. wealth). Therefore their decisions will have larger effects on job creation.

Ultimately it doesn't matter that jobs are created by rich people. What matters is what policy steps we can take to improve job creation, wages, and opportunity for U.S. citizens. Unfortunately actual policy discussions are too frequently railroaded by framing arguments like "do rich people create jobs."

<comment><USER24> >So when you make a statement like "It doesn't have to come from rich people, it comes, ultimately, from profit," it's a somewhat meaningless distinction because every piece of profit is controlled by a person somewhere.

It is not meaningless at all. Rich people are _individuals_ that control large amounts of wealth. This is opposed to groups of people who collectively control large amounts of wealth. A superintendent of a large school district can control a billion dollars of wealth but that doesn't make him or her rich (though they make a good salary I'd still classify them, personally, as solidly middle class).

And it certainly does matter if we rely increasingly on fewer and fewer individuals (due to increasing inequality) to make economic decisions for everyone. It is inherently inefficient. What we are talking about is identifying this trend as a problem and implementing policies to counteract it before it becomes intractable.

<comment><USER23> School districts don't make a profit, they are funded from profits. Before a school district can have a billion dollars to spend, that wealth has to be generated somehow.

> And it certainly does matter if we rely increasingly on fewer and fewer > individuals (due to increasing inequality) to make economic decisions for > everyone.

I agree with this, but it doesn't disagree with the idea that rich people create jobs.

<comment><USER24> School districts don't make a profit but they do create value, but that is a digression.

>I agree with this, but it doesn't disagree with the idea that rich people create jobs.

Rich people can create jobs, but we shouldn't over-rely on that mechanism. They aren't the only ones creating jobs is my point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> This is all "chicken and egg" stuff; does the demand for goods create jobs, or do the jobs create demand for goods? I think it's both.

Regardless, the premise is flawed. Rich people don't create jobs, _smart_ and _ambitious_ people do. There just happens to be some overlap between those groups.

</comment><comment><USER26> There seems to be a lot of people equating _investment_ (often by the rich or owners of business) with people returning all/most of their wage income back to the economy (the poor or middle class that spend their paychecks directly).

If these activities are the same, I assume you would agree that they should also be _taxed_ the same? If so, we should really get rid of "capital gains" taxes and tax those profits as regular income. Otherwise there would be a severe bias introduced into the economy from the uneven application of taxes.

/or, maybe there is something different about investments after all...

</comment><comment><USER27> I understand the concept that a business such as Wal-Mart can easily afford a sudden rise in minimum wage as that's almost always the example used. That, or another similarly large and successful company.

But what about that mom and pop store on the corner? Am I to understand that they could afford the new employment costs if suddenly it were to be doubled, or close to it? How long does it take for the new economic benefits of the store paying out more money per week to employees to offset the new costs? Can they last that long? Some places are on tough times and on tight margins. Any increase in expenses is potential disaster. Do they raise prices at first because that new positive economic impact doesn't happen immediately, which may actually prevent the positive impact if other local stores have to do the same? Will the customers with more money to spend in their store offset the new higher costs of employing people or will it be a wash?

(If anyone has a source of the economic impact on small businesses, and not the large chains, of doubling the minimum wage I would be highly interested in reading it.)

Because this isn't just about increasing minimum wage, it would increase wages for a great number of people who are not making minimum wage. Would the manager of a pizza shop be happy that his drivers suddenly make more per hour then he does? Of course not, that would mean all wages at the place would need to be adjusted according to seniority and responsibilities. Many wages are structured based on the current minimum wage level.

Plus, it would seem that it would be in the best interest of Wal-Mart to push for doubling the minimum wage. As been shown numerous times, they can afford it. Much of their competition could not.

Not that I disagree with the sentiment, something definitely needs to be done because the current mantra clearly doesn't work. But the issue is far more complicated, as the original essay mentioned points out, then just simply raising the minimum wage. I think raising the minimum wage would, in the end, be a good thing; but I believe there would be a wave of negative consequences, and there are many, that would have to be survived. Many people who are against raising the minimum wage point out those negative consequences, but cannot see beyond them. That doesn't mean they should be ignored.

<comment><USER28> First off, most of what follows is anecdotal.

I've worked at a couple of mom-and-pop businesses. Most of our customers at a couple of the places were people working at or just above minimum wage.

Were our customers to have their income doubled it would be great for the business. More customers with much more disposable income? That sounds fantastic. And in turn the cost of higher wages for the employees is smaller than the reward from a more prosperous customer base. On a $2 cup of coffee for instance, the wage cost is somewhere between $0.15 and $0.50.

A customer making $8/hour would balk at a $3 cup of coffee, but a customer making $16/hour would have no issue with it. Even accounting for a 15% to 25% increase in cost all the way down our supply chain, we would still come out the better for it. As would most businesses.

Even businesses were wages are the majority of the expenses wouldn't be hurt. If the cost of a service is 75% labor wages, and that cost doubles, you need to raise the price of that service by 35%, right? But your lowest income customers have a 100% increase in income. Probably a multi-times increase in disposable income. That's good for business.

The problem with competing with walmart has little to nothing to do with labor and wage costs. It has to do with Walmart's highly optimized supply chain and one-stop-shopping at very low prices. Doubling of wages would have very little impact on the dynamic between Walmart and smaller businesses.

Though smaller businesses may benefit from a consumer base with more disposable income having to be less price conscious and not having to shop at walmart out of economic necessity.

<comment><USER6> Speaking for myself and my wife. We debated for years whether to get a house cleaner. Finally, we have made the leap and have somebody come over once every two weeks to clean. However, if that house cleaning company were to raise their rates 35% to compensate for increased wages, we would go back to cleaning our own house, without question.

I suspect that kind of thing could quickly make some businesses that had been viable, no longer viable.

<comment> lhc- Many of their potential customers would also benefit from increased wages as well though, so while you may have to drop the services, there are potentially many others who are now willing to purchase it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> The academic term for this area of economic study is _Marginal Propensity to Consume_ [1]. It's defined as:

      "The proportion of an aggregate raise in pay that a
      consumer spends on the consumption of goods and
      services, as opposed to saving it."

I don't think it's very controversial.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_propensity_to_consume](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_propensity_to_consume)

</comment><comment><USER30> What constrains landlords rent prices?

If you increase the minimum wage won't the landlords just subsequently increase rent?

So essentially increasing minimum wage is just funneling money to landowners?

<comment><USER31> > What constrains landlords rent prices?

Competition.

> If you increase the minimum wage won't the landlords just subsequently > increase rent?

Yes, they will -- as will people selling other goods that are in demand by the people receiving more income. Under any reasonable assumptions about supply and demand elasticity, those receiving more income as a result of the minimum wage increase will _still_ be better off _after_ considering the specific inflation in the price of certain goods and services resulting from the greater income received by them as a group, but not by as much as a pre- increase analysis that ignored the market-specific inflation would suggest.

> So essentially increasing minimum wage is just funneling money to > landowners?

One effect of increasing minimum wage will be funnelling some money to landlords and others selling goods and services to the people receiving increases, while funnelling some money _away from_ those selling goods and services to the people and corporatiosn _paying_ the increases. (Often times, those will be the _same_ people, though different _specific_ goods and services.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> So if the billionaires are putting their wealth in savings, isn't it because they are getting good returns on it, implying that there is demand for capital in the form of loans? What is to say that this isn't what the economy needs?

</comment><comment><USER33> Wow, a business article saying money sitting in a bank account does nothing? Are they that clueless? It is leveraged many times over and invested and used by the bank. Putting a dollar in the bank lets the bank pretend they have forty.

<comment><USER34> We were taught in school that a bank takes deposits and lends them out as loans but that's not how it really works. When a bank makes a house loan for example, the house is added to their balance sheet and it becomes an asset that they can lend again, minus a fraction.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> The source essay for this is equally as good of a read. If not better, honestly.

<comment><USER35> Oddly, I posted it and it got turned into a dead link. :( I'm not even sure what that means. I'm assuming I messed up the posting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> > Had he been born in Africa, Hanauer points out — where the potential > customers for his entrepreneurial efforts would have barely enough money to > survive — Hanauer would likely be selling fruit by the side of the road

Africa in not a country. It's a continent with 50 plus countries, some with a middle class with decent spending power. So there's a high probability that Hanauer would in fact not be likely to be selling fruit by the side of the road growing up in a middle class family (as he did in the US) in an African country.

<comment><USER37> Unless it's been revised, the actual article (not the business insider summary) says "Somalia or Congo", not Africa. See page 3 of the link below.

[http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the- pitchfork...](http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks- are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> >To anyone reared on the political orthodoxy of the moment... "higher wages cause higher unemployment,"

This is not political orthodoxy at all this is economic law. Anyone who understands the basic principle of supply and demand knows that higher price lowers demand. [http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/06/asian- community...](http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/06/asian-community- letter-explains-damage.html)

<comment><USER38> Yes, but better wages don't necessarily equate to higher prices.

During the domestic auto bankruptcies it was a bit grating to hear people ramble on about the "high" wages of union workers being at-fault for the domestic's inability to compete.

Considering domestic vehicles are already generally less expensive than imports, just how much more less expensive do they need to be to get people to buy them? If union labor represents $1,000 of every Malibu sold, and union wages were cut in half across the board, and that savings was passed onto the consumer with a $500 lower MSRP, would that move significantly more vehicles?

I'd like to think common sense would say "of course not". The price is already (generally) very competitive.

It's like basic reasoning skills go out the window in these discussions.

To make the argument higher blue-collar wages are a problem, first you (you'd think obviously) need to quantify the impact of those wages. Is it 2% of the cost? 5%? 10%? 20%? Would killing the retirement benefit, and cutting the base salary in half drop that ~$60 total compensation package to $35? If labor compensation is 10% of the cost of a $30,000 vehicle, you can now theoretically (if the savings aren't simply reinvested elsewhere, or disappear in management bonuses) drop the price of the car to $28,750.

All of those "savings passed onto the consumer" assumptions seem real unlikely to me. But even then, is that $1,250 savings going to move more product?

Probably not. While there are always exceptions, most people who aren't already considering a domestic vehicle aren't making their decision on price alone. Price isn't even the primary concern for someone who purchases a Camry over a Malibu (obviously; and there's nothing wrong with that).

So yeah... I don't think increased wages for the average worker have a whole heck of a lot to do with higher unemployment. And there are a lot of business advantages to being an employer who takes care of their people IME. Especially when applied to software development (you'd think here of all places that would be glaringly obvious).

I think your comment is needlessly snarky. You could as easily suggest that "Anyone who understands basic economics knows that higher wages increase purchasing power" (in the short-term at least). Furthermore that the people in the lowest pay brackets are the ones most likely to spend it in ways that benefit the overall economy. Which is why (as distasteful as feels sometimes) extending unemployment insurance is one of the most economically beneficial and stimulating things you can do in times of recession. Those dollars are going to get spent, and they'll get spent where they'll be most effective at creating new jobs.

<comment><USER39> I think he's talking about the labor market here. Conventional microeconomics would suggest that increasing the price of labor by setting or increasing a minimum wage would reduce the demand by employers for the product, human labor.

That may be true in the limited case, but the argument is clouded by questions like whether increasing income of all of the employers' customers would allow the employer to do more business or raise prices, thus potentially increasing their demand for labor to compensate.

I can't see any doubt that this would happen, but the extent is hard to determine. How much will the average consumer's wages actually increase, and how much of that will be taken up by increased prices in other goods they buy? If they end up with more money, what will they do with it - save more, buy higher-quality goods, buy luxuries? So the overall effect on any particular business is unknown.

<comment><USER38> When we're talking about minimum wage however (other comments he made), that's just patently untrue though. Even if a service job could get by with fewer labor hours without impacting their sales negatively, there are always plenty of other businesses who couldn't.

I mean, I worked those jobs when minimum wage was like $4.25. I haven't noticed a drop in employment at the franchise or small business level. Have you? From a practical standpoint, these places aren't just spreading around labor hours willy-nilly today. If they find some "fat" to trim, they do so, so the management can take home a larger slice of the pie.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> It's like saying: you didn't earn that PhD, since we all pay tuition that fund the school, we all earned it for you.

it seems it's cool these days to never give the "rich" any credit. When hey leave, and take many of the jobs with them, will we still be parroting this nonsense that they don't create jobs?

<comment><USER41> That's not really analagous to Hanauer's thesis. His point is that believing the rich, on their own, to be the job creators is absurd. That it's the entire economic system that enables job creation, and the wealthy are only one component. And given his attitude in the original essay [1], he doesn't deny them their credit, he just thinks "Job Creators" is a loftier title than they deserve.

[1] [http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the- pitchfork...](http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks- are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> What about clickbait sites selling demand-side economy story as some sort of revelation despite being heavily represented in the field of economics and government policy for the last hundred years? Do they create jobs? Or just confusion?

While it's true that Americans take less money home, it's not true that compensation has fallen. In fact, "total compensation reflects growth in productivity."[1]

BTW What actually allows trees to grow is the CO2 from the air. That's what they're made of. Partial credit for mentioning water.

[1] [http://www.nber.org/digest/oct08/w13953.html](http://www.nber.org/digest/oct08/w13953.html)

<comment><USER41> > BTW What actually allows trees to grow is the CO2 from the air. That's what > they're made of. Partial credit for mentioning water.

      But what actually grows and sustains trees is the combination
      of the DNA in the seed and the soil, sunshine, water,
      atmosphere, nutrients, and other factors in the environment
      that nurture them.

Pretty sure they cover CO2 in that list under the broader category of atmosphere.</comment></comment>


What reddit taught me about startups: making money (really?) - <AUTHOR> http://reddit.blogspot.com/2007/10/what-reddit-taught-me-about-startups_11.html

<comment><USER2> I'm loving these posts kn0thing, thank you. We've heard comparatively little about what it was like building and selling Reddit and it's probably the one I want to know the most about.

<comment><USER3> I'm guessing kn0thing was referring to the parent comment of his comment, not the Reddit post itself.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I think this is right on. Users come first and everything else will fall into place. (I'm not saying to _ignore_ everything else, but making users number 1 and letting everything else fight it out for number 2 seems like the best way to work.)

</comment><comment><USER5> I feel compelled to play devil's advocate on this one: not all popular sites wind up with happy endings ([http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2006/06/figuring_it_out.ph...](http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2006/06/figuring_it_out.php)).

<comment><USER6> I suspect that the founders and early investors of both Skype and YouTube were reasonably happy with their endings.

<comment><USER5> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivor_bias>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I understand the aversion to drowning users with ads, but still, many sites use ads without nauseating the users to generate decent ad revenue. Why was it so hard to do it for reddit?

</comment><comment><USER8> I hate you guys...i didn't know she had a dick.

<comment><USER9> That seems too random -- even by Internet standards...</comment></comment>


A Stalker's Guide to Guest Posting - <AUTHOR> http://www.shopify.com/blog/6956586-the-stalkers-guide-to-highly-effective-guest-posting

<comment><USER2> So I was the receiving end of this stalking (my name is Mark and I work at Shopify). I just want to point out how effective his tactics were. At no point did I have ANY idea what was going on behind the scenes. I simply thought, "oh - he's a cool guy, he likes my blog, and seems to enjoy Tweeting / commenting a lot." To learn about his wildly elaborate strategy now is not just amusing, but it's impressive as hell. If any of you guys are having trouble finding quality blogs to write for, or are simply looking for another way to get traffic to your site - give this a read.

<comment><USER3> Awesome Mark! Glad it didn't creep you out too much. For the record, while I did have an agenda in mind, I also DID like the blog and genuinely enjoyed sharing your stuff. I think you can't authentically get behind the content and quality of a site you're trying to land a spot for, you should re-consider how worthwhile it is to write for them in the first place.</comment></comment>


Engadget banned from Reddit - <AUTHOR> http://www.reddit.com/r/TechNewsToday/comments/1pf2v6/engadgetcom_banned_from_reddit/

<comment><USER2> Hilariously unsurprising that a parasitic content farm would resort to spamming.</comment>


New Version of Benchmarking State-Of-the-Art Deep Learning Software Tools - <AUTHOR> An early version of http://arxiv.org/abs/1608.07249v5 appeared here a month ago. Judging from the changelog (Section 7.1) the authors have fixed many issues. The results differ quite a bit from the original version. On the high end GPUs (GTX 1080) it seems that CNTK is the best for LSTMs and Fully Connected Nets. Torch is the best for Resnet 50 and Caffe is the best for Alexnet. <comment><USER2> Glad to see this work was updated so that the comparisons are now equivalent. I would like to see their next paper on multi-GPU. CNTK would likely do quite there as well. Note: I work at MSFT.

</comment><comment><USER3> Nice improvement</comment>


How Europe Learnt to Swim - <AUTHOR> https://www.historytoday.com/eric-chaline/how-europe-learnt-swim <comment><USER2> In Belgium at least, swimming proficiency is rapidly declining. Can't remember the numbers, but many children can no longer swim. Some schools have changed their programmes and have lowered the bar from the traditional 1KM in breast stroke or front crawl and are now basically teaching kids how not to drown.

The cause, from what I remember, is a serious shortage of public pools. Many older pools have had to close because they can't meer water quality/hygiene standards, and hardly any new pools are being built.

The sad result is that kids are now horrible swimmers.

<comment><USER3> Immigration doesn't help. Swimming isn't really something people do in Iraq or Afghanistan. And boys and girls can't swim in mixed groups.

Every summer is now filled with news of kids drowning- we are back were we started a hundred years ago.

<comment><USER4> > Immigration doesn't help. Swimming isn't really something people do in Iraq > or Afghanistan. And boys and girls can't swim in mixed groups.

? It is completly irrelevant, the proportion it represent is next to none.

For your reference

> The largest group of immigrants and their descendants in Belgium are > Italians, with more than 450,000 people, which is well over 4% of Belgium's > total population. The Moroccans are the third-largest group, and the largest > Muslim ethnic group, numbering 220,000. The rest consists mostly of French- > speaking people from Brussels, Turks, Kurds, Dutch, French, Portuguese, > Spaniards, Greeks, Bosniaks, Algerians, Congolese, Vietnamese, Poles, > Indians, and Guineans (around 23% of Belgium's population is of non-Belgian > origin).

Moroccan people swim just fine.

I really do wonder how can people have that idea on their mind at all time even in cases like this where it doesn't even begin to be in scope.

<comment><USER3> Because swimming is no longer publicly funded and mandatory at schools. Which leaves it at the discretion of parents. Is it racist to point out that asylum seekers and migrant children are over represented in drowning? Swimming is something that needs to be taught.

<comment><USER4> No but it's stupid to claim a nation's overall proficiency at swimming (what this thread is about) is affected in any meaningful way by migrants that doesn't even represent a percent of their population.

If you don't think that's what you were saying, I invite you to re-read what this thread is about, and your comment to it.

The fact that these few people in particular might drown more often proportionnaly is 1. not what this is about, 2. unsourced, especially since as the article state culture who don't know how to swim are scared of it and don't try to do it, unlike culture like ethnic belgian who aren't scared of it and thus have more chance to drown by effect of not being afraid of going into the sea despite not knowing how to swim.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I have lived my entire life never more than a 10 minute drive to a beach.

I can barely float. But once you reach a certain age the social stigma of it will prevent you from even trying, I have been looking to learn but most places I found are oriented towards very young kids and nothing for the 20-something people that need to catch-up

<comment><USER6> I used to teach swimming, I had a class where an 81 year old woman sign up for the 8 week course, while she didn't have the mobility to do front or breast stroke she became very comfortable floating on her back and doing very slow widths of the pool, its never too late. I also have a work colleague in his late 50's who only learned to swim four years ago and completed an Ironman last year. I would recommend signing up for course of 1:1 weekly lessons with a certified coach, and practicing between the lessons, you'll be amazed what 16 hours over 8 weeks would do for you.

<comment><USER7> Thank you for this. As a 50-something, I've swam my entire life but never mastered the breast stroke that seems to be required for "serious" swimming. Instead I backfloat, paddle, and swim underwater. It's always seemed to work well-enough. I've even got a SCUBA certification. But I always wanted to learn better technique. I thought that there wasn't a lot of options for older folks.

<comment><USER6> I don't do breaststroke either, find it too hard on my back even though I regularly do up 3KM open water swims front crawl. Do whats comfortable and enjoy it

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> A common tragedy in Australia is recent migrants, going to the beach, not understanding "the rip" and drowning.

These migrants can come from anywhere. Africa, Asia, Europe. The commonality is that they have at best, 25m or 50m swimming proficiency. They have never swam in open water, experienced tidal pull, waves, uneven rocky shorelines.

At various times, there have been campaigns to get them trained up. Its a short, sad life to emigrate, hit the beach and die.

(a second common fatality is rock fishing without an anchor or a life vest but thats Off Topic)

<comment><USER9> Sadly it happens with tourists in the Portuguese coast as well, which never got to swim with the Atlantic waves or sudden change of underwater currents.

<comment><USER10> As an Italian, having spent all my life up to that point bathing in the tame and shallow coasts of the Mediterraneum, I remember vividly when pluging the first time in the Atlantic in Figueira da Foz :)

Even in a tourist beach, the strength and sudden depth of the ocean was so different from what I was used to.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Is it really worth while to try and pinpoint a time when swimming was forgotten?

My reasoning is that in a world where people are born, work and die in one place there is a smaller chance of them ever needing to swim.

Only coastal people really need to swim and even then, as the article states, mostly if they harvest aquatic resources.

So in other words. As long as global communications have been lacking humans have been living very localized lives and not had the need to swim. Why then try and pinpoint a specific time when we "forgot" to swim? Doesn't make sense to me.

And yes I know strontium analysis show that humans could migrate a long way even in ancient times. But they were usually migrating over land. With the exception of small groups of humans during relatively small windows of time who aided in colonizing islands like the british isles or south east asian islands, people who weren't involved in the aquatic industries mostly moved across land.

I guess the article is trying to say that humans moved away from coastlines as agriculture became more efficient. And therefore forgot how to live near the coast.

<comment><USER12> Why is knowing any history important? The Western Empire's collapse in 476 is considered a major and important event in world history, but it's knowledge is of conceivable value to any future human endeavour. We value it because we like knowing where we came from.

To the question of obviousness - lots of things are obvious but wrong. It was obvious that Earth was at the centre of the universe. It was obvious that heavier-than-air craft couldn't fly. It was obvious that the aether existed. Studying obvious things is important.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> This may explain why so many otherwise highly developed non western courtries don't reach swimming to everyone. England and France were big naval powers of the time and had much more reason than just watersports to mandate swimming skills for the populace.

<comment><USER14> Historically sailors were actually quite bad swimmers. The thinking was that any man who fell overboard was basically dead anyway, as the ship was unlikely to be able to turn around and get him before he drifted away (sailing boats aren't exactly precision vessels). All swimming enabled a man to do was prolong his suffering, treading water in the middle of the open ocean for a few days before dying of exposure.

More-over, much of British naval strength was press ganged and an inability to swim meant once aboard the men were easier for officers to control. They were stuck there, and couldn't jump ship and swim to shore to escape their bondage.

<comment><USER15> > Historically sailors were actually quite bad swimmers

It's not just historically. A lot of people who work on the water these days in developing countries are still terrible swimmers. One of my friends was a dive instructor in Indonesia for a few months, and apparently the guys skippering their dive launches couldn't swim. Since it was Indonesia, they also didn't bother with wearing life jackets.

I don't know how they managed to spend their life living on an island and not learn how to swim. Apparently Fijians are also terrible swimmers. It just doesn't make sense to me. Obviously they aren't going to swim between the islands, but it seems like a fairly essential life skill when boats are your main method of transport.

<comment><USER16> Swimming is overwhelmingly (though not entirely) a recreational thing and mostly found in rich countries. A few professionals in poor countries know how to swim, dive and do all sorts of things. But everyone else has more important things to do than to learn how to swim.

And swimming is something you should either learn to do fairly well, or not do at all. Most poor mothers will let their kids play soccer on a quiet street -- but they will balk at letting 'em swim unless they get real training.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Late to this thread, but I loved this article because it put something into perspective for me... my New England boarding school had a swimming requirement, and was proud of its longstanding tradition of requiring all graduates to be able to swim. It makes sense given the context of when it was started and the extent of people's ability to swim.

</comment><comment><USER18> I have a soft spot for the aquatic ape hypothesis, even if it is rather ludicrous it's just so entertaining.

<comment><USER19> It's one of those things you _want_ to be true.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Ancient Greeks were not Europeans. Ancient Greeks were a combination of Levantine and Anatolian peoples. Modern Turks and Lebanese have more in common genetically to ancient Greeks than today's Europeans. The romanticizing of Greeks as European is plain Eurocentric revisionism.

<comment><USER21> I'm sorry but this is an absurd comment.

How do you define Europeans? North/western only? The continent's name is ancient Greek and, while the eastern borders may have changed, there is no point in time where the greek mainland was not considered part of it even in ancient times.

And what the hell do genetics have to do with a geographic designation?</comment></comment>


Clients I Have Failed: What Not To Do - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessweek.com/print/technology/content/may2008/tc2008051_076548.htm

<comment><USER2> Thanks for sharing these stories. I'm sure we can all relate to at least some of these issues (some more than others -- I've been there/done that on almost all of them! ;).

Some of the product knowledge issues we've been fortunate enough to avoid since we write our own software, but being young (19) and very inexperienced when I started I certainly learned the hard way not to over-promise and under- deliver.

I once had a "Mildred" experience myself where the person in charge on the client's end wasn't unqualified but was constantly changing his mind. Almost daily, he sent us new design plans that had nothing to do with what we were supposed to be making.

After a conversation with his boss about how the project needed to stay on track, no change. After a heavy conversation about how the project was going to fail if they couldn't get a handle on him, no change. His boss actually confided that everyone else was too busy, and that the person we delt with worked from home because if he came into the office everyone else would leave so they wouldn't have to deal with him. Strange...

So the project failed of course, and they decided to not pay us for a chunk of time at the end. I still managed to pay my contract developers out of pocket, but I definitely learned to avoid ever letting such a scenario play out for the amount of time it did.

We actually had another project recently that initially seemed like a fairly simple document manager, but a few meetings in the client had basically explained that they were planning to run their whole business on this thing, all client communications, accounting and everythin. We ended up turning the project down, which was ultimately the best thing to do for everyone.

</comment><comment><USER3> It would be an excellent tradition for people to post stories about their mistakes -- we live in such success-driven cultures that it's almost like admitting you're a loser if you ... well, lose occasionally. Yet, the more I develop software for other people, the more I see that it's _about the people_ , not the software per se. The map is not the terrain, the plan is not the project.

<comment><AUTHOR> "the more I see that it's about the people, not the software per se"

Thank you. A fundamental truth we too easily forget.

<comment><USER3> I'm going through the aftermath of one of my failures at the moment. It's been an interesting, illuminating experience. I've learned that I am (as I suspected) fallible. I've also learned that most "civilians" don't know what they want from software, even though they think they do. And I've learned that you can't please everyone, and it's futile to try. I might write this one up some time, but the fat lady ain't singing just yet.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sorry to hear about it. For some customers, showing that you care is half the battle. Hope this is one of them.

<comment><USER3> In fact, you hit the nail on the head. They're discussing canning the project but appreciate I've put heart and soul into it, and are looking at all the options about how to go forward. Fortunately, one of those options includes keeping me on, so they're still paying me. This in itself is one of the lessons I've learned: I don't have to be perfect to be useful. Believe me, that's a _real_ paradigm shift.

<comment><USER2> In my experience, honesty is your friend here :) I had a contract that we took on which inherited someone else's codebase as a starting point, but it sounded simple enough.

When we realized it was getting not-so-simple we had to decide whether to go back to the client and explain that it's going to be more than we thought, or whether to just push through and go over a bit (false coder heroism...). We decided to push through. Turned out that just made things even worse and we would need even more time to fix it now.

We were also busy with another big project at the same time, so we were focused more on that as well. So things dragged on. Finally, I had to have a meeting with the client where I could make something up or simply tell them the truth. I opted for the truth (that would be my dad's influence :).

I was pretty scared it wouldn't work, but they accepted my apology and the plan to correct it, which did require more time and money to complete. I felt like I had dodged a bullet. We managed to sort everything out in the end, learned our lesson, and they've since recommended us to several other companies because they feel they can trust us. And it feels pretty good to have earned someone's trust that way too.

Anyway, I write way too much on here... (gotta learn to edit! ;) But good luck with your project, hopefully you'll have the same luck I did!

<comment><USER3> "false coder heroism..."

This was me, but now I'm learning the valued art of project management. Like marketing, I used to think it was all baloney, but now I know better.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> "I sold cars to unlicensed drivers."

This concisely describes a mistake that a lot of IT consultants have made (myself included), when the product they've installed/built/configured/whatever works perfectly well, but accomplishes (next to) nothing, because the customer doesn't know how to use it.

Pretty much all of the examples the author cites of failing his clients sound familiar (although fortunately, I have avoided most of them).</comment>


Cozy 1.0 "Snowden" Release  - <AUTHOR> http://cozy.io/v1-snowden-release/

<comment><USER2> I like the release code name. Such a good idea, well thought guys!

<comment><AUTHOR> Right! I really like the Raspberry suggestion and future Mailpile integration. Would like to see a big "Buy" button here to just order my raspberry Pi with everything setup and easy update. I think that "easy of use" would be a key point for such decentralized tools to beat Dropbox & Co

<comment><USER3> Thank you guys for the feedback! About the ease of use we are working on it via partnerships with hosting companies and ISPs. If you can't wait, you can check cozycloud.cc too.</comment></comment></comment>


Why Ugly Sites Convert Better Than Yours - <AUTHOR> http://www.drawar.com/posts/Why-Ugly-Sites-Convert-Better-Than-Yours

<comment><USER2> I get an error when visiting the site:

A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Notice

Message: Trying to get property of non-object

Filename: posts/single.php

Line Number: 3

<comment><AUTHOR> Seems there was a slight error. Today's lesson: Never run off for a bathroom break when there might be errors on a page.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Ugly as in less than a 3000 pixel display causes text to disappear off the edge of the page?</comment>


How Many Cops Does New York City Need? (2020) - <AUTHOR> https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2020/06/how-many-cops-does-new-york-city-need/ <comment><AUTHOR> I'm personally convinced that a strong case is made that connects leaded gasoline with high crime rates. Certainly larger police forces and legalized abortion and various public policies, etc., are also in the picture. But can it be said that lead abatement from gasoline, if not the top cause, is nonetheless among the most likely reasons for the reduction in crime rates over the past few decades?

</comment><comment><USER2> I looked into this a few years ago out of curiosity, most European countries (and Australia, Canada) hover around 190-200 police per 100,000, the US is ~300 which isn't that exceptional given Scotland has more as do some other countries.

I don't think it's necessarily about numbers so much as quality via recruitment, training and policy.</comment>


Cue - a set of vector touch gesture icons - <AUTHOR> http://thenounproject.com/collections/cue

<comment><USER2> These don't look like finger tips, at all. To me they are little nuns with wifi signals or directional arrows. I would find it difficult for someone to guess "fingers" on the first try when asked what they look like.

</comment><comment><USER3> it looks like a lot of anime eyes staring at me</comment>


No Employees for a while - Plentyoffish won't hire - <AUTHOR> http://plentyoffish.wordpress.com/2007/08/13/no-employees-for-a-while/ "All I can say is there is going to be a major major change to the web and the economics of Online Dating are about to dramatically change."<p>Sounds... well, dramatic.

<comment><USER2> This guy is the strangest character I've seen in a long time.

<comment><USER3> Agreed. The site looks awful too. It's like MySpace for dating.

<comment><USER4> Could be worse but I don't know why people log on there in the first place. What's Markus's secret?

<comment><USER5> Based on a quick glance, and keeping in mind that I have only 10 minutes experience with online dating:

1\. Free is a hard price to argue with.

2\. It's easy to understand. Everything is in front of you.

3\. Because it's free, it's easy to see exactly what you're getting.

4\. Craigslist is also free, but it's restricted to specific cities. It's true that the list of cities has grown massively, but the fact that Craigslist is chopped up into subsites makes it feel smaller - especially if your city happens to be the one with only 2 ads on it. Plentyoffish keeps the geographical partitioning in the background, and sustains the illusion that the entire world is one big room.

And let's face it - Plentyoffish may have somewhat primitive design, but it's like fine art compared to Craigslist, which doesn't even give you thumbnails to look at.

5\. It feels like something one of your friends might throw together in a weekend - and that's good, because the result is unintimidating. There are lots of people looking for dates who cannot write or take decent photos, and the last thing you want to do is scare them out of posting by setting high design standards. You're not designing an art museum. You're designing a very fancy bathroom wall for people to write on. Plentyoffish nails this aesthetic - it feels more like a backyard BBQ, or a friend's untidy family room, than like a fancy cocktail party or a business meeting with suits and ties.

Which suggests that there might be room in the market for an upscale Plentyoffish - for people who want to look for dates in the online equivalent of a country club instead of at a bar. Perhaps that's what the subscription dating sites are for?

Any more guesses from the audience?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> _"... All I can say is there is going to be a major major change to the web and the economics of Online Dating are about to dramatically change. So for now I'm just going to overspend on tech and buy my way out of any trouble and maybe hire someone part time to do customer service stuff. ..."_

duck around that obstacle, spend the money only when needed ~ smarter than we (I) give credit? ~ <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40810></comment>


Eyes Aloft: The Sublime Obsession of Plane Spotting - <AUTHOR> http://www.vqronline.org/reporting-articles/2016/10/eyes-aloft <comment><USER2> Former commercial pilot here, and since I was a little child, I can remember always running out and looking up whenever I heard a plane or helicopter go overhead. Still do to this day whenever I hear an unusual engine noise, or hear an aircraft that it outside of the normal flight path in my area (not far from an airport).

Friends and family look at me in odd ways, and I get the occasional condescending "Yeeeah, it's just an airrrrplane!!!" type comments, but for me, they will always be magical things of beauty and interest.

<comment><USER3> Ditto here, but not a pilot. I almost always lunge outside when I hear an unusual (usually military) aircraft. A few years ago, a Ford TriMotor was making frequent passes overhead and I got some good photos of it, due to hearing it from afar. I almost always accurately distinguish the mid-range hum of the Sheriff's Bell from the more thumpy Coast Guard helicopters that often pass by. I have seen many neat aircraft as result of my aerial curiosities, including WWII bombers, various fighters, re-fuelers, cargo planes, mil helicopters that made trains seem mute, meteoroids/incoming space debris, and a few celestial anomalies. Yeah, I used to get some strange looks (and comments) when I had my Leica Ultravid, Zeiss Victory, and Orion 15x70 binoculars. Be glad you weren't into astronomy; folks come up with all sorts of big ideas when they see some "creepy" guy staring at the night sky, "undoubtedly" searching for any insignificant gap in the miniblinds of person x,y,z while completely indifferent to the rest of the Universe. If looking up was held in half the esteem of watching telly, it might be a much more interesting world. On another note, maybe Irvine Welsh will do something with the title of this article. Apparently, a sequel to Trainspotting is due next year.

<comment><USER2> Coolness! Yes, the airport near me is a combined civilian and military field, and there are frequent visiting military aircraft from all over the world. People think I am crazy for saying I can tell the different between an F/A-18 and a Sukhoi SU-27 (Yep, we've had those here too), but I can.

There are also a few warbird enthusiasts based here, and I especially love the sound of a thumping old radial engine. That one is guaranteed to get me out of a coma and running outside in my underwear! :D

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> There's something incredibly awe inspiring in observing real time air traffic maps (www.flightradar24.com) and then seeing and correlating them in the real word. Really exposes just how globally integrated our world is.

<comment><USER5> And for ships: [https://www.marinetraffic.com/ee/ais/home/centerx:25/centery...](https://www.marinetraffic.com/ee/ais/home/centerx:25/centery:37/zoom:7)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Another long read on plane spotters, this time from Australia: [https://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewmcmillen/things-are- looking-u...](https://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewmcmillen/things-are-looking-up- for-planespotters-the-worlds-most-obse)

Usual disclaimer about it being good despite being on BuzzFeed.

Also this discussion was about a bot that tracks dictators flying to Geneva, potentially for money laundering: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12748169](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12748169)</comment>


Show HN: Animated video I made for my app Brainbean - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrHYqPbdRCU

<comment><AUTHOR> Would love to get your thoughts on whether this was 1) Executed well, and 2) Effective at capturing the interest of those most likely to download the app</comment>


The dollar has plummeted in value, more so in Bush's term than during any period of U.S. history. - <AUTHOR> http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20071102/cm_uc_crpbux/op_334275;_ylt=AvZgJ1Rdc9CrCFBX44p18HOs0NUE <comment><USER2> Ugh, can we leave the politics and bad economics on reddit, please?

</comment><comment><USER3> David,

Agree - this is a reddit article. I don't want this on YC.

</comment><comment><USER4> It's articles like these which make me want a vote down button.</comment>


MITs New 3D Printer Uses Molten Glass as a Medium - <AUTHOR> http://www.fastcodesign.com/3050300/mits-new-3d-printer-uses-molten-glass-as-a-medium

<comment><USER2> What size beer would you like, it's .50 for per ounce.

I'll take 16 ounces

Ok, one sec lemme print up a glass, one sec.</comment>


Spire API (golang) for avg Breath Rate per min over 24 hours - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/andrewarrow/spire-go <comment><AUTHOR> By monitoring respiration, Spire gives you the insights you need to stay relaxed, focused, and perform at your best – whether you're running a 10K or working at your desk.</comment>


Ask HN: I'm taking 2 weeks off work to build a prototype. Any advice? - <AUTHOR> As the title says I'm taking 2 weeks off to build a prototype (website + workers) for an idea I have been kicking around friends and family for a few months.
My current plan is to spend the first day planning, 3 days researching, and then 10 days building. (this leaves me 2 days free to watch the rugby and get out and about).
I'm a solo web developer with no dependants, and I'm planning to work from home.
I'm looking for general advice about solo sprint work, personal/time management, and interesting technology. <comment><USER2> Just do yourself a favor and include one more week.

It doesn't matter what kind of project, always include one more week.

Don't be upset if you can't stick to your plan, allow yourself an extra week.

It's not your fault, that's basically software engineerings nature.

You should get out daily, for at least 1 hour. Simply because that one hour is for recharging your brain, which again leads to better performance.

Also what I try to do, when I'm doing a hackathon, is that I'm looking for templates from themeforest or wrapbootstrap.

There are also a lot of good templates for your framework, where auth/register/signup/signin/roles etc. is already done for you.

I don't like reinventing the wheel, I'd rather focus on the business logic.

<comment><USER3> >You should get out daily, for at least 1 hour. Simply because that one hour is for recharging your brain, which again leads to better performance.

This has been pivotal for me when I work from home. I like to go out for breakfast to start the day off and then go out again in the afternoon to run some kind of small errand.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The most successful side project I ever had was an SaaS business I cobbled together in two weeks of Christmas break sophomore year of college. It paid the bills for the rest of college.

This sprint sounds like a great way to force constraint on yourself. Make sure you're _using_ that constraint. Don't work on this like you would any other project. You need to be fully aware of the deadline, and constrain features within it.

If you're making an SaaS, the the first thing you should do is setup payments. That will give you confidence that this sprint can actually result in some real revenue. Then, you can build out the features.

Also, don't experiment with any new technologies. Use only what you know, and prefer shitty spaghetti code over well-architected solutions. Just get this shit out the door.

</comment><comment><USER5> If you're planning to make money from it, try doing a good draft of the launch page first. This helps you focus on which features are critical and which are just nice to have that aren't big selling points.

Also, don't obsess about making the code and architecture good. Get it working to prove the idea works then using what you've learned you can go back and improve it. I see so many side projects fail because many coders obsess about making code perfect over more important things. Releasing a project with imperfect code is vastly better to never releasing anything because you procrastinated trying to write perfect code in my opinion.

<comment><USER4> I like the sentiment here, but don't waste your time on the launch page! You can accomplish the same goal -- determining the crucial features -- by _drawing your landing page on paper._ List the top three benefits of your app, then list the features absolutely necessary to enable those benefits. That's your MVP.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> If the intent is to sell the prototype, put up a landing page right now, with a free Mailchimp subscribe form, and a super simple blog (for extra points, use WordPress, setup Jetpack and Post by Email. Then to "blog" you only have to send an email). Start spreading the word about the product, but also about your two weeks. Dedicate at least a little time each day to update your blog, and/or email your mailing list. People who follow you on the journey will become fans for life.

</comment><comment><USER7> I would definitely say commit your timeline to paper/tracking software etc. I do this to myself all the time where I come up with a timeline and don't stick to it. I found that by having it front of my face (like I usually do at work) it helps me stick to it and let my mind wander less.

Also, I have found that at work it is ok if you get sidetracked sometimes because your guilt or sense of responsibility to your coworkers and company will refocus you soon enough. If you are like me, then you have no such thing when working on your own thing. For that reason, I highly recommend keeping regular, well defined work hours. I would even consider one of those apps that won't let you connect to FB, etc. while you work.

As far as technology goes, you can build a solid prototype website in anything these days. Pick the language you know best and also pick a solid foundation. By that I mean do as little as necessary to make the prototype work. Don't fall into the trap of using this as an excuse to try something new (if you want to actually get it done that is). Frameworks are great for this for example.

Good luck!

<comment><AUTHOR> cheers buddy, I was definitely considering exploring some new stuff, but you are probably right.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> 1-Use a to-do list. This might seem like a basic thing, but not many people know how important it is. It allows you to have specific goals everyday that you work toward. Also its very satisfying to checkout a goal :)

2- Work in 25-5 bursts. What that means is that you cut yourself completely from any disturbance, which include your phone, emails, social media, family members... for 25 minutes, that you dedicate completely for work. Then take a 5min rest. Its very effective and something that i do myself.

3-Hire a frontend developer or buy a ready made theme to only focus on the backend stuff. Since UI is very important.

Good luck with your project mate!

</comment><comment><USER9> For software, create a plan to build what you'd normally code... preferably, something you want. Figure out how to sell it, how long it would take to build (time === money), the business model required including marketing plan to reach profitability, and whatever else you need to launch it. Then build a 10-20 slide deck with a designer about the idea (not a prototype), learn how to present it (don't waste it coding, let others do that in the future) and start pitching at least once or twice during those 2 weeks.

In the end, I hope you'll become a successful technical CEO and great company because you've learned a lot more than an API or two.

<comment><USER10> Are you being facetious? He wants to build a prototype not hit hype cycle funding.

<comment><USER9> No not at all, code is especially cheap, almost worthless. He/She already knows how to do that - so don't waste time on something you already know. Focus on:

1\. Ensure there is market / product fit

2\. How long to get to develop the product

3\. Break-even point

Or write a bunch of code, and be left with another if-I-build-it-they-will- come FAIL.

<comment><USER11> good quality code is not cheap. doing both biz and tech is not mutually exclusive at an early stage

<comment><USER9> Obviously you need both, that's why I'm suggesting the focus should be on the biz.

I disagree that it's rare or expensive, it's quite the opposite. Most knowledge associated with it has little lifetime value and is constantly tending towards zero - a 5 year old code base that generates little income has a value of near zero or is a liability. You can hire an engineer for a year to build web apps, depending on country, for the price of a medium sized sedan.

<comment><USER11> that's also true. but at such an early stage it really helps if you do it yourself. you can and should hire later

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> As someone who's going through this process myself, here are some tips:

\- Have a clear goal about what you're building. If you don't know where you're headed, you'll end up getting lost.

\- Start the research NOW. It takes quite abit of context switching between research and dev. The sooner you get a clear view of how to build it, the better.

\- Use tools, frameworks, other people's code, etc. but consider the learning consequences.

\- Layout daily goals and your roadmap for all your features. Put it in your calendar

</comment><comment><USER13> Be careful not to fall into the notion that you have unlimited time. Don't get obsessed with small details that take too much of your time.

You should work each day like you're going back to the office in 2 days.

<comment><AUTHOR> cheers bro!

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Scope the entire project into half days worth of work, aim at being in flow for 2-3 hours in each block. (Unless you are not used/trained in being in flow, then the pomodore technique might be better for you)

Lay out the entire 20ish blocks and post them here/email to your friends and family or to some other entrepreneurs that you do not want to dissapoint by not getting stuff done.

Every day, update the post/email with a status, did you get the blocks done and if not why not, what did you learn and what will you do differently tomorrow?

Good luck!

<comment><AUTHOR> Cool Idea! that structure works pretty nicely for me actually. I'll give it a go thanks pal!

<comment><USER14> Feel free to email me if you think I can help you in any way!

anders(a)timeblock.com

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Don't build a prototype, build something shitty you're going to sell.

I did that once, a long time ago, and it took me on an amazing adventure.

<comment><AUTHOR> What did you build out of curiosity?

<comment><USER16> I agree with the above as well. Take an hour or so really thinking out what you're building, define what your MVP is, build your MVP as your 'prototype' find beta users and get feedback, redefine what you're building if needed (users might want something different then you were planning on making), improve that initial MVP to users standards, ask them what other features they'd like, build those, start charging, continue going through feedback loop again and again.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Great prototyping app: [http://apex.oracle.com](http://apex.oracle.com)

[http://santiago-north.weebly.com/complete-web-apps- part-4.ht...](http://santiago-north.weebly.com/complete-web-apps-part-4.html)

</comment><comment><USER18> Build only 1 feature, only 1 page, and make it as appealing as possible before building anything else. Measure the appeal by number of users. Spend the first day launching, however far you get.

</comment><comment><USER11> perhaps the best resource on starting up a business quickly is ''the 7 day startup'' by dan norris

[http://www.amazon.com/The-Day-Startup-Learn-Launch- ebook/dp/...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Day-Startup-Learn-Launch- ebook/dp/B00NZFKB8S)

check out [http://7daystartup.com/](http://7daystartup.com/) as well. dan occasionally throws a 7 day startup challenge where a bunch of entrepreneurs gather online and start a business in a week

</comment><comment><USER19> Build a prototype and _then_ take 2 weeks off. You need those 2 weeks to talk to prospects, see people, and launch.

<comment><USER20> This.

I thought I needed time off to focus on building Wormhole[1], but actually I'm needing much more time to talk to customers and on-board them. Apart from documentation and lots of feedback to work with.

Now I need the time to work on that feedback, prioritise backlog, keep bringing in users and finally converting some of the users into customers :)

[1][https://wormhole.network](https://wormhole.network)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Allocate some days to producing wire frames & mockups before development so you know exactly what your building

<comment><AUTHOR> Have you got any suggestions about wireframing tools? It's not something that I have done a lot of.

<comment><USER21> At work, we use balsamiq but I've also engaged with design firms who produce interactive mock-ups using hotgloo. On the side, I use freemium tools including gliffy. Paper and pen works just fine too, especially when on the go and inspiration hits.

<comment><USER22> Balsamiq is useful. The company used to, and may still have, a scheme by which, if you have an open source project, you could ask Peldi (the founder) for a free copy. (This was in the early days of the company. I got one that way. Also, it was valid lifelong.)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


A startup idea - "Virtual World Users - 1 Billion, Roughly Half Under Age 15" - <AUTHOR>

Following this article in readwriteweb, I got an idea.
How about starting a venture that combines real world jobs(part time jobs for kids) that could be paid for with virtual currency.
What do you think about this? what else can be done in this regard?
I have just started analysis. If any tech folks are interested to join me in this, please respond
-V <comment><USER2> What article?

Anyway, I've thought about it back when I tried Second Life. Their currency could have been used for micropayments. I think they even have an API to their money system? Eventually the virtual currency will be taxed, though. Ultimately, what is the advantage of the virtual currency?

Most virtual worlds also don't really like you taking the currency outside. Otherwise it would be fun to create an exchange market for virtual currencies.

Second Life came to mind because unlike most other virtual worlds, they allow you to script things.

For example, you could program an automated bank teller in SL. To exchange currency with World Of Warcraft, you would (presumably) need a real person acting as a bank (receiving money, notifying the exchange market to create a transaction, and vice versa). Plus, that person would probably be banned from WoW after a while.

Come to think about it, I am not sure if becoming a bank in WoW is actually illegal, as long as you don't take the money outside of WoW. Might be a fun thing to try.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm not sure I understand this. Correct me if I am wrong, but you want to hire children to do real-world jobs, in possible contravention of child labor laws in about a zillion different jurisdictions worldwide, and then you are going to pay them in a "virtual currency" which is either a) not transferrable to legal tender, and thus essentially worthless, or b) transferrable to legal tender, in which case you now have to deal with banking laws in about a zillion jurisdictions?

Is that the pitch?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Here is the article [http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/number_of_virtual_world...](http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/number_of_virtual_world_users_breaks_the_1_billion.php)

My thoughts have been to build a bridge between numerous virtual-goods marketplaces that exist today that require money to buy virutual currency/goods and folks that can earn credits to pay for by working parttime or running errands.</comment>


How bootstrapping works in the Communications Design Group (2016) - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dweVuJBoK6o <comment><AUTHOR> By the same author, who has been ethnographically studying Bret Victor's lab: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14815772](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14815772) // [https://limn.it/utopian-hacks/](https://limn.it/utopian-hacks/)</comment>


NPM GitHub closing "support" issues if inactive longer than 3 days - <AUTHOR> http://blog.npmjs.org/post/161832149430/npm-the-npm-github-issue-tracker-and-you <comment><AUTHOR> One such issue: [https://github.com/npm/npm/issues/14185](https://github.com/npm/npm/issues/14185)</comment>


Show HN: River – A river of news aggregator written in Python - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/edavis/river

<comment><AUTHOR> Been working on this for a few weeks now. Really happy with how it's turned out.

My personal instance is running here: [http://rsshub.org/feeds/](http://rsshub.org/feeds/)

Here's the config that runs it: [https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/19853263/Feeds/feeds.txt](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/19853263/Feeds/feeds.txt)

The YAML config makes this aggregator a tinkerer's dream. By changing the "factor" for a given feed, you can control how fast it drops down the page. The higher the number the slower it drops.

Any feedback is welcome. Thanks!</comment>


The man behind FAKEGRIMLOCK - <AUTHOR> http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/03/31/breakfast-of-champions-meet-the-man-known-as-fakegrimlock/

<comment><USER2> Can someone explain the downvoting of FAKEGRIMLOCK's comments? I find them insightful, substantive, and hilarious, but is some HN norm being stepped on?

<comment><USER3> This is very puzzling. Also - why isn't this front page yet?

<comment><USER2> It was frontpage and trending up. It must be getting flagged quite a bit. Very curious.

<comment><AUTHOR> And now that you pointed it out, the trend has reversed... what in the world is going on here?

EDIT - I'd also like to point out that the headline changed. Is that a typical practice on HN? I don't think my original headline was anything inflammatory or off-point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I really appreciated the candidness on getting out of the midwest. I love home. Born and raised near Kansas City, Missouri and went to school at Missouri and Iowa.

But the resources and mindset aren't there yet to build a consumer-web startup. Zaarly is the best example and yet a large chunk of its team is on the coasts. Hard to tell the truth when you're a "nobody" as FAKEGRIMLOCK mentioned. But at the mythical FAKEGRIMLOCK is become easier to say what's on your mind.

</comment><comment><USER4> FAKEGRIMLOCK seems very relevant to this site as he created a brand out of nothing and I find most of his short comments insightful. So the interview is a nice read on his tactics even if it's a bit shallow. I just hope we don't have tons of clones of his persona. It works only once or twice.

</comment><comment><USER5> It's really a shame that FG's comments were downvoted here... Can anyone shed some light on what happened?

</comment><comment><USER6> @fakegrimlock is as genuine as can be. His advice is golden and right on. Just accept him and his persona as they are.

</comment><comment><USER7> he' s a brand in himself. Expect to get Fake Grimlock action figures in stores in 5-10 years

<comment><USER3> Anyone with the 3D skills to draw one? I'd print one out in a Makerbot :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> <http://projectgoats.com> enough said.

</comment><comment><USER9> You have plenty of (silent and not-so-silent) supporters. Keep up the AWESOMESAUCE!

<comment><USER9> Well.. I'll bite.. care to explain the downvote on my comment, dear <comments.current.parent.downvotes[0].author> ? Thanks

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> All of the above?

</comment><comment><USER11> ME, GRIMLOCK, ANSWER QUESTIONS IF ASK HERE OR ON ARTICLE. UNLESS QUESTIONS STUPID OR BORING.

<comment><USER12> I understand the feelings toward the midwest, but you also made a reference that its not like the "coast" do you think there are other areas that are well suited for startups, such as boston, NYC, or Atlanta?

<comment><USER3> FG apparently can't post here anymore. Try Twitter?

<comment><USER13> Why can't FG reply here?

<comment><USER3> GOOD QUESTION

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> the question answers itself: all of the above.

</comment><comment><USER12> Article of total awesomeness. Several great take-aways. Well done super dino robot.</comment>


Show HN: 500 Years of Witnessed Meteors w/ d3.js - <AUTHOR> http://roadtolarissa.com/meteors/

<comment><USER2> Great work on this. It's easy to use and fun to play with. I spent more time than I'd care to admit zooming in, panning around, and looking at all of the different impact sites.

I also liked your write-up of the project: <http://www.roadtolarissa.com/meteor-map/>

(The only small, minor, nitpicky thing I noticed was hovering over a new impact site displayed the old one for a split second. You probably already knew that though :)</comment>