The Shut-In Economy - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/matter/the-shut-in-economy-ec3ec1294816 <comment><USER4> I don't feel like ordering things online makes me a shut-in at all - just the opposite.

I work a lot, and by spending less time on the drudgery of brick-and-mortar shopping, I have more time to spend on the things that matter to me. Including socializing.

Yeah, maybe I leave the house less, but are those trips to the store really "quality time?" Making a run to Wal-Mart or the supermarket to buy toilet paper is time better spent than playing with my dog or reading a book?

We're missing out on some potential fun times, sure. I have made friends, bumped into existing friends, and had some good conversations while shopping. But those experiences were and far between. One positive social experience out of one or two hundred trips to the stores, maybe.

Retail shopping is usually freaking _depressing_ \- the employees and customers are often rude, and you're bombarded from all angles with sights and sounds designed to entice (or scare) you into buying things you don't need. No thank you.

Lately my wife and I subscribed to a service that sends you 3 ready-to-prepare meals (for two or four people) per week. These aren't frozen heat-and-eat meals; they ship you fresh ingredients and easy to follow recipes. Are we shut-ins? Because cooking these meals together is generally a lot more fun (and healthier) than dining out for us.

<comment><USER5> > Retail shopping is usually freaking depressing - the employees and customers > are often rude, and you're bombarded from all angles with sights and sounds > designed to entice (or scare) you into buying things you don't need. No > thank you.

That's not about retail, that's about urban life. I live in a town of less than 2,000 people. There's one grocery store, and when you go there you recognize at least half the people inside (if you didn't already recognize their vehicle in the parking lot). In 2015, there is less need than ever for us to all live in the same few places. Remote work can offer you offer the benefits of small-town life without the loss of economic opportunities that used to go along with it.

<comment><USER6> > In 2015, there is less need than ever for us to all live in the same few > places.

That's an interesting perspective. I've heard (and believe) the exact opposite. In 2015, there's no need to incur the (well-studied) economic, environmental, and cultural costs of low population density. Not to mention it's kind of bizarre to assume that it's clearly _better_ that having a population of only 2,000 people from which to meet people and make friends.

Your environment is what you make of it. I used to live in a smaller town and now that I live in a dense metropolis, I meet people and make new friends CONSTANTLY (not even joking, just this week I've (platonically) gotten 2 people's numbers based on meeting, finding mutual interests, and both of us wanting to hang out).

<comment><USER7> > Your environment is what you make of it.

Alternatively, maybe different people genuinely prefer different environments. You appear to be an extreme extrovert, so it's no great surprise that you enjoy living in a metropolis. Other people aren't, and don't.

<comment><USER8> I think that's backwards from the usual definition of "extrovert". I don't like making small-talk with relative strangers, whether that's the store clerk, someone waiting for the same train, or what have you. So I love living in a big city.

<comment><USER7> Yes and no. I absolutely get where you're coming from; I'm an extreme introvert living in London, and the anonymity is about the only thing that makes it bearable. The flip side here, and in many (but not all) metropoles, is the near-impossibility of finding quiet, either at work (expensive commercial property pushing employers toward open-plan bedlam hell) or at home (expensive residential property pushing people into tiny thin-walled apartments).

I think the small-talk-with-everyone-you-meet thing is a characteristic of very small towns and villages. I've lived in medium-sized places that didn't have it. The introvert ideal of a blissful hermitage miles from anywhere is probably impractical, for many reasons, but I still have some faint hope of finding a liveable middle ground someday.

<comment><USER8> Modern buildings in London seem to have got the soundproofing right; of course you'll pay for it but it's worth it IMO. I live in a shared ownership (housing association owns 75%, me 25%) flat and it's completely quiet (the tradeoff is that I'm living in Tottenham as that's the only way to make it even vaguely affordable).

<comment><USER7> Sounds nice. I'm a bit further in (N4) and in an older conversion, and it's not even a tiny bit quiet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is how I feel. I don't watch TV for hours like I did as a child. What I do now is worse; stay in doors programming, browsing the web aimlessly, or staring at the ceiling. I don't blame my internet lifestyle for this really, but I literally don't know what else to do and the internet is so accommodating to me being a shut-in. I know I'm wasting my life but I don't know how to stop.

San Francisco is a beautiful city but it is wasted on me and I feel like I should feel guilty for that. I don't deserve this nice city; it belongs to creative people.

Trying to leave the house to do anything interesting takes herculean efforts. I can't find joy or interest in anything beyond an intellectual level. Everyday sometimes feels like it's worse than the last.

I'm trapped in an un-ending present where I grow older but never grow as a person.

ps - anything you have to suggest is something i've heard already x10 and have or currently trying, such as therapy.

<comment><USER10> Same here. Live in a beautiful city, cool friends, lovely girlfriend. Plenty of things exist here of which I can objectively say they're awesome, and in many things I'm genuinely interested, and so I avidly read and follow the news, whether it's social topics, economics, politics, tech etc. Yet I hold very little interest in experiencing anything personally.

If I had to describe it succinctly; I've become a dedicated spectator, but no longer wish to participate.

It's pretty ridiculous and something very strongly tells me it's the wrong way to live life, and I'd love for that to change. But the passion just isn't there to get involved anymore for even the simplest things like taking a walk outside. Again, as a spectator it's great. It's not as if I'm disinterested or don't like to hear from friends if they call me or want to visit. But calling them, or visiting them, somehow it's too big of a step.

As it's only been like this for a few years I can see how ridiculous all of this is. It's like I got the lazy syndrome: still care, but not enough to act on it. Yet it's not really laziness as I never watch TV or sit on the couch or sleep all day or get no work done... It's something else but I can't quite put my finger on it. I wish I could take some kind of hormone injection and rediscover my lost motivation for life.

Similarish postscript as you btw. Proper food, sleep, exercise, meditation, social, iteration etc, already covered stuff like that, but I'm open to new ideas.

<comment><USER11> I think we're afraid of being wrong.

We live in a society where access to information is greater than it ever has been in history, and everything we may take an interest in doing has been done before, and someone has already pointed out all of the flaws and how it's wrong. We see that first and focus in on it, and we let it destroy something that a previous generation would've seen as imperfect yet beautiful.

<comment><USER12> Information overload can be worse than none at all. I recall someone did a study of employee 401K participation, and above a certain point, the more choices they were given the fewer people ever signed up.

Our limited capacity for "decision-making" is at least as real a limitation as time or money.

<comment><USER10> Absolutely, abundant choice can paralyze.

For me it has to do with opportunity costs. Take a strawberry milkshake instead of banana, no biggie if it tastes bad. Take a career path and end up regretting it, and it's a really big deal, usually. And even if your career path wasn't a bad choice per se, again, opportunity cost, perhaps the alternative had been much better. At the end of the day you just have to choose, try it, and if it appears nice enough you double-down, and that choice can be really difficult.

One of the most frustrating things for me had been having to decide on the bulk of my professional education before ever having worked in the field. I think programming is to some extent an exception in that many programmers get a decent experience on what programming is like as a kid, as a hobby. Being an engineer in an office is a whole different matter of course, but the notion of programming for hours on a daily basis is something you can grasp by age 15 or 18 when you decide on a focus in high school and a major in college.

But for so many professions, you have people age 17 having to decide if they like being a dentist or a lawyer, or a sales person or a government worker, while having near-zero experience, and fleeting ideas on what it is from movies and magazines.

Not sure what it's like in the US but in the Netherlands at age 11 you get tested and go to a certain level of secondary school. The lowest gets you entrance to community college at age 16. The middle to vocational school (e.g. university of applied sciences). The highest to university ('research uni'). There's some opportunities to switch after age 11, but it's very tricky for multiple reasons and generally rare. And then at age 13 or so you decide on a focus which gets you different subjects. e.g. Physics & Science, or Culture and Society or Economics & Society. And those give entrance to your tertiary education. So if you chose at age 13 or so that you liked Culture, you'd have gotten things like art history and French, and you couldn't go on at age 17 to pick Computer Science. You'd have to do an extra program, again difficult for various reasons and rare.

Now at 24 looking back this structure was really frustrating. I liked economics as a subject, chose that path, always did Computer Science as a hobby (which wasn't a subject in any of the paths), but couldn't do CS unless I did Physics (which was a subject I had for years regardless as everyone gets it, but not to the full extent supposedly required).

<comment><USER13> > Not sure what it's like in the US but in the Netherlands at age 11 you get > tested and go to a certain level of secondary school.

Wow, that sounds really f*-ed up! I always thought most places were like Slovenia (or UK is similar, if I understand correctly), where the main decision point is only at 18-19, when you're choosing your university! (The earlier is at 14-15, between a "gymnasium" \- general-purpose school - and a vocational school (e.g. for a hairdresser, cook, ...), but most reasonably intelligent people go to a gymnasium).

<comment><USER14> I'm originally from the UK and, while you are correct that university at ~18 is usually the point-of-no-return, "high prestige" universities often have significant expectations on performance within a predefined set of subjects (at least within engineering) during the admissions process.

It would be very challenging for someone lacking the above-average levels of interest/talent in relevant fields at the age of 16 (spurring them to take related college-level courses) to get into a prestigious STEM course - <USER2> extraordinary circumstance.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Think about all this specialization.

This is what a "good economy" looks like. Parents who work long hours so they can afford to rent some great apartment and buy _stuff_ for their family. They outsource a lot of the childcare to professional nannies or whoever. They outsource a lot of the elder care to nursing homes _etc._ People are getting married later in life so they can focus on their career. Individualism, kids moving out early, trying to impress each other with great apartments etc.

We are materially richer, but what about the social connections?

Similarly with technology. Take birthdays, for example. On their birthday people used to get personal phone calls, possibly emails. Then facebook made it easy to just write "happy birthday" on someone's wall, and see who else wrote it. Then, to increase "engagement" (or the appearance thereof), they let you write a quick note right where the birthday reminder appeared, on the right-hand pane. Now you couldn't even see what others wrote, and sometimes would breeze through, personalizing the greetings slightly "Happy birthday girl! Older and sexier they say."

Now, people are complaining that they have to get through so many birthday wishes on their wall and write a semi-personalized "thanks" response to each one. So the remaining step is to make an app to automate this. So the end result is we'll have nearly automatic sending and nearly automatic thanking, basically robots talking to robots, while the whole experience of birthday wishes is automated away from humans.

<comment><USER16> > We are materially richer, but what about the social connections?

Well...Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn of course.

<comment><USER17> Those are database records. Social connections are actual interactions with other people.

<comment><USER18> Well, online services are also actual interactions with other people, much of the time.

They are interactions based on telecommunications, computing, display and sound reproducing technologies, etc, and they are one way to have contact with other people. "Real-world" interactions are also involve mediums: sound waves traveling in air, eyesight dependent on presence of visible light frequencies. Physical phenomenons like the transport of bits is, deep down.

Yes, there are some aspects in physical presence which do not apply to on-line social connections. Most importantly, touch.

But (depending on culture), we don't often touch people who are in the same room, either. On-line interactions have also some aspects that _improve_ our workings with other people, over physical presence -- for instance, from on- line you can go off-line and exchange ideas and information, while if you're in a room and speak, the person who comes in 5 minutes later will not hear it.

<comment> saiya-jin I am sorry to say but you're so wrong... human interaction is not only accoustic and touch-based, but also visual, which takes most of sensory signal feed to brain (correct me if I am wrong here).

If you shun away from human interaction, that's fine. But be honest to yourself and don't say few clicks/strokes of keyboard are similar to having a decent talk with anybody. Heck, even video conf call is miles away from real world experience. I am an introvert myself, but this is simply not true.

<comment><USER18> Interaction in the same room is not the _same_ as on-line interaction, of course; but it is _not better in all ways_. Many ways, yes, but not all. In some ways, humans interacting over (e.g.) a computer are faring better.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I guess call me crazy, but I really enjoy chores. They aren't always pleasent, but they are a diversion. I can listen to NPR podcasts while grocery shopping. I catch up on the "Stuff you should know" podcast while cleaning and vacuuming my apartment. And I enjoy a walk around the area in the evenings when the weather is nice out. The diversions are where I can really think. I often have too many distractions at the computer, and can't focus on the really hard problems I am working on. I've found when I am doing something menial like chores, that is when I can really think and solve hard problems, especially when I am not trying to at all.

I would never outsource my chores. I just enjoy them too much.

<comment><USER20> Yup. I don't even think of them as chores. I mean, maybe cleaning, but grocery shopping? I enjoy that shit. I'm too anal retentive to let someone else pick out my produce. Aside from that, if you're in a city why do you even need these services?

Are these people so glued to their work that they can't take 30 minutes out of the day to walk to the grocery store and pick up a few items? This article was very sad to read imo.

<comment> saiya-jin that couple situation, whether imaginery or not, seemed almost desperate - <USER3> comes home at 9, he at 1 am. This might work for years (it would be a sad story if they had kids in this regime though), until something changes and they end up having more time for each other. Who they discover living with might be pleasant or nasty surprise...

This might be just me, but being in relationship is always a strong bond for me, that works only if both parties have similar attitude towards each other and can actually be present in the relationship.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> The most 'jarring' part in the article was "But when the Homejoy app maid shows up at her apartment, she feels uncomfortable. The class implications of someone cleaning her toilet are jarring."

Income inequality will always exist in capitalistic society and to a certain level that's ok. Whats not so cool it to feel as if they are inferior just because thats how they're making the best of their life circumstances. As one of the workers said "This is a job I need, but I actually love," Some of them come from tougher times and appreciate the work they have. Being polite to them and treating them equally as another human goes a long way.

When our cleaner is over we always have a good little chat to her. She moved from Colombia to Australia by herself, is studying English. Respect to her drive to move to a foreign country and work hard to get ahead. She wasn't born in a middle-upper class first world country like I was.

<comment><USER22> I think it's more along the lines of Katy's own sudden perceived elevation of status is jarring to her. "The wealthy" as a group come with a lot of stereotypes, responsibilities, & judgments. Katy doesn't think of herself as wealthy, but having hired help is generally a sign of considerable wealth in the USA. So, Katy is unsettled by how her social status seems to have changed out of the blue, and how she now needs to behave.

Particularly, there is a pervasive stereotype of the wealthy mistreating or dehumanizing hired help, so any suddenly-wealthy middle class person is going to be panicking, "Oh shit, how do I not become _that_ wealthy person, I've never done this before"

I don't think judgement of the worker was even on the radar.

<comment><USER23> There's another, perhaps US-specific dimension to the discomfort:

The self-sufficiency and egalitarianism of doing one's own chores used to be a note of middle class pride, at least in the once strong middle-class industrial areas of the country.

These values were further facilitated by the post-war boom in home-labor saving appliances (washing machines, etc.)

Many of us who grew up in such a cultural context have a more difficult relationship with others serving us, and we don't feel it gives us an increase in status, but rather it feels almost like a moral failing. Of course, with the ever busier nature of our lives and the availability of low-wage workers, it's quite hard to stick to those morals, hence the inner conflict.

People I know who grew up in US cities or other countries where a significant service-employed underclass exists don't seem to have issues with being served. From what I've seen, being able to afford service labor in those places is actually a status symbol that people strive towards.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> So for all of you people who withstand the bullshit of the bay area but stay in all the time...why are you wasting all your money living in a city and not taking advantage of being urban? You could, instead, move a bit further outside the city and live around trees, grass and the best part? There's like no people around! It's great!

I mean...you don't even need to live in the bay area. You could just move to, oh I don't know, one of the other 20 massive major cities in America and live much cheaper. Is being amongst all of these startups really that important if all you're doing is going to the office and coming home? Never going out and being a part of the social scene? I just...don't understand this idea at all. Seems like a fairly illogical way to live life.

FWIW this is precisely the reason why I moved away from the suburbs and live in a city. I just like living in the city more, I like walking around and having conversations with people. Not talking to my neighbors makes me afraid of what I don't know about them. Not seeing anyone or knowing anyone exists seems scary to me, and the Internet is just 70% there because the social interactions you can have on here are limited at best.

Saying you have a social life because you're on the Internet is kinda like saying you're a total stud because you have a lot of phone sex. It's not really the same thing, but you might feel the same way about it.

<comment><USER20> > So for all of you people who withstand the bullshit of the bay area but stay > in all the time...why are you wasting all your money living in a city and > not taking advantage of being urban? You could, instead, move a bit further > outside the city and live around trees, grass and the best part? There's > like no people around! It's great!

Right!? When I saw that the concierge said they have a lot of "work from homers" I was like "wait...what". Why on earth would you live in SF if you could work from anywhere?

<comment><USER25> I would imagine that a lot of them have jobs that may be from home but require frequent meetings in the area.

Other than that it might be for networking, or they might have all their friends in the area.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I don't have the historical knowledge to do it myself, but it would be fascinating to read an in-depth comparison between these services and the economy of servants in the 19th or early-20th century.

The image in my head (from movies and books and reading [about] Piketty) is that the wealthy in earlier eras were more idle, living off rents rather than incomes. I imagine servants would have been more of a status symbol for them, whereas today's upper-middle-class strivers see them as more of a necessity "to dedicate more time to working." I wonder, is that as close as we get to progress, under capitalism? I.e., if we're going to have servants, the people employing them today have a somewhat less dubious reason for doing so than their ancestors?

<comment><USER27> I don't think servants were just status symbols. Cooking, cleaning and laundry without appliances was a very time consuming job which probably occupied the days of the wife and daughters of a family with no servants. Add to that inconvenient shopping, clothes mending, child care.

<comment><USER10> Yep, your comment reminds me of the $3500 shirt:

[http://www.sleuthsayers.org/2013/06/the-3500-shirt- history-l...](http://www.sleuthsayers.org/2013/06/the-3500-shirt-history- lesson-in.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> _Van Ekert's answer: "It's more to dedicate more time to working."_

With the arrival of every functionary serving as a reminder of what could happen if you slow down your pace on the treadmill.

This article makes me glad I don't live in SF any more.

<comment><USER29> There's an episode of the show _Black Mirror_ that makes this very very obvious.

<comment><USER30> For those wondering, I think the episode that copsarebastards is referring to is called 15 Million Merits.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I started working from home as an employee and then moved out of the job to be an independent consultant working from home. I enjoyed the freedom, there was so much I could do apart from work after saving on daily travel and lesser restriction on time.

Slowly, it turned the other way round - I got shut-in. Started from not having to go to local store daily - because it was a waste of time. I could not relate to a calendar-day. Sometimes I would start my work at 6pm in evening and sometimes at 3am in the morning. I tried to discipline myself, but it did not work out for valid reasons. And I started introverting due to lack of social contacts. Health wasn't an issue - because home gyms were good enough and I think those kept me off any depression. The shut-in introduces pretty bad habits. The "freedom" was out, I was working most of the time - it almost felt like a self-imposed prison in the name of discipline and saving time. Sometimes I have wondered if my life was any better than placing my brain in a box bionically connected to a computer.

Now, I make it a habit to go out once every day or couple of days, same time for 45 mins-1 hour a bit after the busy day starts for most. It is a HUGE waste of time but it acts as a tether for my work day, makes me feel grateful for what I have and surprisingly, results in better productivity.

<comment><USER10> Oh god this is so familiar. Work from home, too, pays the bills just fine but I've lost any semblance of schedule. Barely need to go out anymore, just for groceries but my gf who goes out daily and loves to cook likes to do this part, only occasionally do I run to the store to get some things for her. So I barely get out.

Been meaning to go out on a daily basis but I think I have DSPD [0] and so I tend to wake up late, sleep really late (or early in the morning). It's terrible really, I feel like a bum or a teenage kid sleeping like this but it's like I'm programmed to act like a 3 year old in the morning, the self- discipline required to get out is insane while I've generally always had a bit of a spartan lifestyle haha. It boggles my mind how hard it is for me to get up. And I absolutely can't sleep at night consistently. Even if I wake up at 8AM, work out heavy for 2 hours, spend a day draining my brain concentrating for hours, meet people for hours and go around town doing groceries and am physically tired, I can't sleep. And then at 4-5AM it hits me like a train. Sometimes I'll power through, not sleeping because I know if I sleep at 4, I'll wake up at 12. So instead I'll try not to sleep and power through until the evening, and then yes I can finally sleep at night that day.

But then that next day I generally still wake up at 12. Even if I ease into it and change my sleeping schedule by 1 hour every two days, at some point it gets reset. Anyway the point of all this is that I tend to wake up shortly after noon and I just don't want to go out for an hour at that point, all I want to do is get some work done before I need to clean up, help prepare dinner, spend time with my gf etc. After sleeping in so late, the last thing I want to do is spend the first hour walking around outside. So I postpone going outside to the evening and I never really do, especially if it's dark and cold like now. In that way it's exactly like you said, a self-imposed prison in the name of work and saving time. And then a little later it's 12PM and I've still got hours ahead of me, but there's no way I'm going outside at 3AM. (I used to as a teenager, but now as an adult I'd just feel like a freak and my gf would get super worried and want to have 'a talk' if I started doing that haha. Also I'd be bored out of my mind if it's dark and deserted. Also, no Vitamin D at night!) Writing all of this down is confronting haha, looks like my life is a mess.

Still trying to find some balance to all of this. I've been meaning to just get a regular job again, but I'm genuinely afraid I couldn't do the 9-5 schedule, as I basically went straight into freelance work out of college and both college and freelance work allowed weird schedules. The hope is that the pressure to conform to this model for fear of getting fired etc forces me to keep to the schedule.

Would love any more ideas or experiences if you want to share :)

0] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_sleep_phase_disorder](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_sleep_phase_disorder)

<comment><USER32> This is crazy! I've never heard of DSPD before, but I've explained to my girlfriend several times (as recently as a couple weeks ago) that no matter what time I go to bed, I don't really fall into a deep sleep, or fall asleep at all, until around 4am. I'll either be fully awake tossing and turning or I'll have a really light sleep. I'll wake up by myself around 11:30 or noon.

I have the same guilt about it as you do, and I'm a total baby about being woken up early. It's been this way my whole life.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> >So here's the big question. What does she, or you, or any of us do with all this time we're buying? Binge on Netflix shows? Go for a run? Van Ekert's answer: "It's more to dedicate more time to working."

Meh. It's specialization. It's been happening since everyone figured out Og makes better clubs than everyone else and he'll make you one if you give him food. Most of the people reading this site have a skill that brings in $50+ per hour. Why _not_ pay someone to clean your bathroom and use that time for working?

<comment><USER34> Now you make $50/hour, wait till commoditization hit your profession and see your wage dwindle before your own eyes.

<comment><USER35> If that day comes, who will be better prepared, those that cleaned their own toilets, or those that used that time for something more productive?

<comment><USER36> Don't underestimate the value in a multitude of skills. When Argentina's economy collapsed in 2001, I'd prefer to know how to write code, do laundry, and wash toilets than only knowing how to write code.

<comment><USER33> >Don't underestimate the value in a multitude of skills.

I'm sure pretty much everybody who hires a cleaning service _knows_ how to clean a toilet.

<comment><USER37> I went to university with a girl who didn't know how to operate a dishwasher. At first, I assumed it was because her family had not been wealthy enough to own a dishwasher; later, I found out it was because they were _so_ wealthy they had servants who loaded and ran their dishwasher for them.

<comment><USER6> The problem I have with people who say things like this is that these things are easily Googlable. I didn't "know" how to do laundry until I went to college (my sister and I had specific chores and laundry was one of hers). During a fight with my sister when I was still in high school, I recall her using that as an insult: "You don't even know how to do LAUNDRY".

I needed to do laundry my first week of school: I couldn't (and to this day can't) even fathom what the phrase "know how to do laundry" meant. Separate whites and colors (or don't), put the clothes in the machine, and press the button.......what kind of mental deficiency is required for someone to think there's an actual gap between "knowing how to do laundry" and "not knowing how".

Loading a dishwasher and cleaning a toilet would seem to be similar. The only gap between "knowing" and "not knowing" is perhaps three seconds of Googling (in case there's some pitfall about what you can and can't put in there).

<comment><USER36> _The only gap between "knowing" and "not knowing" is perhaps three seconds of Googling_

Have you ever worked tech support and had to help a lawyer or doctor set up their router?

It's not about mental deficiency.

<comment><USER6> That example is not relevant in the slightest. Setting up a router quite clearly requires prior knowledge, even if that knowledge is something implicit like "familiarity with navigating Web UIs" or "general familiarity with basic networking concepts".

Neither of those are applicable to doing laundry. There's literally no knowledge required other than "clothes and detergent go into machine". Hell, you don't even have to know WHERE to put detergent because machines are variable enough that they usually just tell you where to put detergent.

<comment><USER36> So nobody has ever shrunk clothes before? Or ruined whites? Or mixed ammonia and bleach to clean a floor?

<comment><USER6> Honestly, that stuff is a lot harder to do than you seem to think it is. My gf has never even bothered separating whites and colors and she's never ruined any article of clothing in the laundry. By contrast, setting up a router is not something you can just feel your way through without _any_ prior knowledge (even prior knowledge unrelated to that specific model). Shit, without prior knowledge you couldn't even get to the router config page.

> Or mixed ammonia and bleach to clean a floor?

The first part of your comment was a reasonable point, but what the hell are you talking about here? You do your laundry using bleach and ammonia....on your floor?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Most of these benefits are being subsidized by VC money (and pension fund LPs). The only reason I enjoyed my $2.25 LyftLine rides last month was because Lyft was burning through their VC money trying to build enough supply/demand to get better scale. Thank you California Teachers Pension Fund! Even with 20-30% markups these companies will not make money without big assumptions about moving down the cost curve. When the VC party end for these companies, it will end for us too, and then we'll have to go to the store to buy our own damn gluten free kale! Until then ladies and gentlemen, we live like aristocrats!

</comment><comment><USER39> I think the intelligentsia do better when they have some manual labor in their lives too. I posit that the gig economy is just a modern take on classism and indentured servitude. We would be better served to improve robotics, automation and efficiency rather than grow a servant class (again).

<comment><USER40> whenever i read articles like this, i can't help but think how much beneficial pressure a basic income would exert on a system like this. when no one _has_ to do your unpleasant/tedious tasks because it's that or starve, there's suddenly an incentive for those jobs to pay much more, or be automated as efficiently as possible. i can see a post-basic-income equivalent of instacart, for example, being the one person who goes out and does grocery shopping for an entire building, but gets a lot of their other chores done for them as a quid pro quo.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> I think people are vastly over-estimating how much time they are saving using these "on-demand" apps. For a mom who is trying to juggle 2 children, yes, I can see this as a huge help. But for the vast majority of the target demographic (young, single-ish, urban upper middle class folks), we're not gaining hours in a day. We're experiencing instant gratification. We're stimulating the reward centers in our brain that remind us how great it is to be 2 again: press a button, get a prize.

I recently started coming to the realization that the "on-demand" lifestyle is having a much more detrimental affect on my life enjoyment. When I'm consumed with messaging, pressing buttons, working, social media, filling my head with anxiety of the next thing, I am losing myself in the future. It takes an enormous amount of effort to be mindful. Cooking, engaging with others, sitting in silence and letting thoughts bubble up, and even chores. These are all little moments that keep me grounded and self-aware and I've think that has made me a better person.

<comment><USER6> > For a mom who is trying to juggle 2 children, yes, I can see this as a huge > help. But for the vast majority of the target demographic (young, single- > ish, urban upper middle class folks), we're not gaining hours in a day.

Wat. The mom in this example may find apps like this more _necessary/useful_, but how does it save her more time than it saves the single person? I got back from the symphony a couple of hours ago and need to get some laundry detergent and other sundries: instead of wasting a good chunk of the part of my day that overlaps with regular hours (when concerts, restaurants, parties, parks, meetups, shows, etc are all open), I spent 4 minutes at 11 pm ordering that stuff before going to bed. Perhaps if your free time consists of sitting on your couch staring at a blank wall, then maximizing free time is not particularly useful, but for those of us who actually do things in our free time, making chores more efficient is a no-brainer. (Though in my case this particular example is a little less salient because I live within half a mile of multiple walgreens so I can usually pick sundries up on my way home. The general principle still applies).

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> As a Current Alfred customer in NYC I can say that the service has been a huge help, and not in the "shut in" way suggested by this article.

Having my laundry, groceries and packages taken care of for me allows me to maximize my weekends.

I think one of the other reasons Alfred is so useful is that it removes 100% of the cognitive load of chores. Services like flycleaners and instacart are actually only marginally helpful since the user still needs to think about laundry and groceries.

<comment><USER43> This is such a glowing review that it almost seems like an advertisement. If/when I get customers, I hope they are this positive about my business.

<comment><USER42> I can assure you that I am no shill. One thing I will say is that it took a few weeks to get everything "in the flow" (socks go in this drawer, wash this but not that etc) , but once they know your routine it's quite incredible to watch everything happen on autopilot.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> _> "We're trying to remove the taboo and the guilt that you should have to do it," says Alfred's CEO_

every time i use one of these services i feel a bit guilty. twofold; guilty that i have someone literally serving me, and that i'm too lazy to do it myself.

i still use them occasionally though. laundry every 2 weeks because i don't have in-unit, and occasional food delivery when i'm feeling especially lazy - i try to just call local restaurants directly though. i also stopped using homejoy because quite frankly it felt too weird to have someone cleaning my tiny place for me.

> _When signing up, customers can choose the option of not seeing their > Alfred_

haha. wow. i guess that's one way of dealing with it.

<comment><USER45> This isn't criticism, just curiosity: do you feel guilty when you pay someone to cut your hair or dispose of your garbage (assuming the latter service isn't included in your housing... that varies, of course).

Those are both things that would have been done by servants in the past, but that most people still have done today rather than doing themselves.

One advantage of having a buzz cut is that it's easy to cut my own hair, but when I had another hair style I didn't feel guilty about getting it cut. I hated that it consumed my time, but that's another thing.

<comment><USER23> I can't speak for the GP, but I think some of the guilt from realizing that the people who perform these jobs often have a very low standard of living and very little job security or life prospects.

Of course there have always been poor service workers in that situation, and as a society we've haven't really cared much about it (i.e. decades long minimum wage stagnation). People are talking about it now because of the stark contrast against the VC-fueled valuations of these companies, and the rapidly growing inequality of places like the Bay Area and NYC.

<comment><USER46> Median garbage collector income in the US is close to median personal income, and they don't even get out of the truck on most stops anymore. They're also widely unionized with substantial benefits.

I haven't bothered having anyone cut my hair in years, but yeah, people working at SuperCuts make crap, in much the same way and for the same reason that people working at McDonalds make crap.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> From the other side:

I worked for one of the on-demand valet services in SF for a few months a few months ago. Basically I loitered around on the street all day, waiting for my company-issued iPhone to send me running or biking to either pick up someone's car or return it.

What was driven (ba-dum) home to me was how buildings in a city are built defensively, to keep out the riff-raff (myself being a member of such).

The implications are somewhat worrying.

</comment><comment><USER48> "Mallon is a 26-year-old in New York City who works as a branding sales consultant to tech companies, regularly working from 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. "

What? Who the hell thinks this is healthy? This person is literally filling all their waking life with work. Even if you love the shit out of your job, you're neglecting your mental and physical health by working that long. (And in all likelihood, she doesn't love the shit out her job. You'll be pressed to find just one person on Earth who'd be happy spending every hour of their day "branding". And I'm a marketing manager!)

And it's not like this person doesn't have other options. She makes enough money to live in a fancy San Francisco apartment and hire on-demand services to do everything. So she's making bank. But all that money's just going to keep up an expensive lifestyle that she doesn't even have time to enjoy.

I just hope she's got a plan. Maybe save as much as possible and retire early. Otherwise, what is she doing with her life?

<comment><USER49> Welcome to NY, where everybody outside of Brooklyn is a high achiever who thinks it's necessary to fill his life with as much work as possible, as otherwise someone else might get his job / he might miss out on a promotion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> > Many services promote themselves as life-expanding — there > to free up your > time so you can spend it connecting with > the people you care about, not > standing at the post > office with strangers. Rinse's ad shows a couple > chilling > at a park, their laundry being washed by someone, > somewhere > beyond the picture's frame.

A case of letting the destination (free time for socialising) overrule the journey (social interaction in your everyday life)?

For example, if you go to a laundromat regularly or catch a bus regularly, you eventually end up seeing the same people and might even end up making friends with them. Maybe even good enough friends that you coordinate your journeys/tasks in order to catch up?

Getting philosophical, an awful lot of things, including life, can be viewed in terms of "nodes and edges". In the case of life, why put so much emphasis on the nodes (the goal) whilst most of your time is spent on the edges (the journeys)?

<comment><USER4>
      > For example, if you go to a laundromat regularly or
      > catch a bus regularly, you eventually end up seeing the
      > same people and might even end up making friends with
      > them. Maybe even good enough friends that you coordinate
      > your journeys/tasks in order to catch up?

You can make friends anywhere. Even in stores! My mother met one of her best friends when she was a customer at the supermarket where her friend worked.

And that's cool when it happens, but come on. It's pretty rare. Even in a small town, everybody-knows-each-other kind of place. Stuff like that has got to be one of the worst ways to make friends _ever._

Compare that with the amount of friends one makes by doing volunteer work, joining a book club, going to local meetups, going to a dog park, etc.

You want to make friends, do volunteer work. The sort of people who do volunteer work are (duh) generally great people. The worst thing that can happen is that you don't make any friends but you still do some good stuff for the world.

<comment><USER51> I think it's not just friendship, it's a feeling of connectedness and community that comes from knowing people in your neighborhood and being known.

For five years I lived in a rundown SF unit with no laundry on site. Every week my wife and I would drop our clothes at a nearby family run wash and fold. Over years of little interactions we started to develop a semblance of friendship and real fondness for the owner. Twice a week I got a nice pleasant/personal experience, and that was from outsourcing a single chore.

I also use services like Sprig/Google Shopping Express/Amazon Prime, because they are awesome, convenient, and cheap. But as a result I rarely buy from the nearby corner store, and have not developed personal connections from any of these transactions. I have saved money and time, but it has cost me in social satisfaction. I'm not sure how I feel about that.

As you point out, there might be active interventions to try and replace this connection (e.g. volunteering), but the default has shifted from "get to know the people around you through transactions" to "receive goods and services anonymously."

<comment><USER4>
      > As you point out, there might be active interventions
      > to try and replace this connection (e.g. volunteering),
      > but the default has shifted from "get to know the people
      > around you through transactions"

I grew up in (and recently bought a home in) a place where we were very close to our neighbors, but we were a mile or two away from the nearest retail stuff. I'm completely into the idea of "get to know the people around you" \- it's actually the "through transactions" part that doesn't resonate with me!

In my head I'm like, "I shovel my neighbor's snow and build snow forts with their kids. Why would I need to be friends with the dude who works at the convenience store too? If I am, great, but it's not exactly a pressing need in order to form a connection with my surroundings..."

But I realize that's not everybody's situation. I have lived in places where neighbors didn't typically befriend each other. I _definitely_ realize that friendly neighbors are a luxury. In my experiences, renters don't typically attempt to form friendships like homeowners do since renting is more of a transitory thing. And owning a home is definitely not advisable for everybody, nor attainable for everybody.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> As a Brazilian I can say: welcome to an unequal society, US. Yes, that's one of the symptoms, and if you look at the lives of those people serving, it's hearth-breaking.

</comment><comment><USER53> If anyone in the Los Angeles area wants to stop being a shutin, I'm open to take people on hikes. There's everything from short nature walks with nice waterfalls, to epic mountain death marches in the area and I'd be happy to guide anyone: email@example.com

</comment><comment><USER54> It seems the obvious unserved need here is a way to outsource the actual work. Maybe I can create a business model around sending someone to your job to act as your proxy.

InstaLackey.com and ImposterPool.com are both available...

* I have to admit that I just spent five minutes struggling with the urge to build a MVP instead of hitting "Add Comment."

</comment><comment><USER55> This video called "Seamless: No Human" was made as a parody of the shut-in economy, and showed up on Reddit the other day. It's actually pretty funny, but the craziest thing is that the top comments on Reddit all said it's a service they would want to use in real-life.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YD13GrccRPw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YD13GrccRPw)

</comment><comment><USER56> In a sufficiently frictionless economy, people will hire each other to do the things they'd rather not do themselves. This is generally acknowledged as a net positive for society[0], and surely the author doesn't manufacture her own electronics, build her own house, or grow her own food. What's so extraordinary about delivery services?

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage)

</comment><comment><USER57> I'm curious as to what's going to happen when this group starts having babies. Time to write a business plan I guess.

<comment><USER45> Hmm... it seems to me that childcare is another of the "formerly done by servants" things that people have never stopped outsourcing to others.

That's not saying there's not an opportunity there. Daycare operations still seem to be mostly "artisanal", or at least operating on a fairly small scale. The big problem you're going to face is that people are incredibly protective of their children (and rightly so... those who aren't haven't left their genes behind :-)). Food is pretty personal, but most people will think nothing of stopping into a strange restaurant and eating the food, but they would never drop off their kids at a random storefront.

<comment> saiya-jin seeing its parents so rarely, they wouldn't be exactly a role model parents for their kids. could be much worse, or course, but having kids is arguably the most important thing in lives of many people, so if doing it, let's do it properly and raise (at least try hard, i mean HARD) a confident, balanced issue-free happy people. i've got the feeling this planet & mankind needs more of those compared to uber-competitive self-centered workoholics.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> Having worked as a delivery guy, I always find it weird that everyone points to this "shut-in economy" as representing some sort of classism. You can do deliveries for Amazon or drive for Uber while also utilizing these services yourself. It'd depend a lot on tips (techies don't tip well so this might be a problem in San Francisco), but it's not like you're stuck on one side of the fence here.

</comment><comment><USER59> I was a shut in before it was cool...

<comment> saiya-jin it's not cool...

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> It's an eye-opener to me, seeing the extremes at which this way of life has apparently arrived... for one group of people in one place in the whole world. Seriously, this article pretends all of humanity in 2015 lives this way. It doesn't! There are approx. 7 billion people outside the Bay Area bubble universe! (Perhaps the author, a resident of the bubble herself, has forgotten this?).

Sure makes me feel old-fashioned, that I and everyone I know still make 95% of purchases offline, still buy groceries at a physical supermarket, still go to the park for a walk every day, still meet new people offline every day, still do household chores, etc. And I live in Sydney (also mentioned in the article - and incidentally, also SF's sister city), not a backward or a disconnected place either.

SF, like Sydney, has good weather and a beautiful outdoors. Pity that so many SF'ers don't seem to be making the most of it.

<comment><USER61> Many anecdotes here, and no real data. Much like all of the world does not live this way, I assure you all of SF does not live this way.

As one who does "get out" from time to time, I can assure you there are a healthy number of people socializing all over the city. There are also plenty of people who make the most of the outdoors. Try visiting a well-marked trail within 20 miles of SF on a weekend. Not exactly "away from it all."

Agree with you that this article picks a very narrow view and creates false dichotomies.

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> I feel like this is a natural response to our lives having us interact with so many people. Some might like the atmosphere that comes from crowd experiences (sports, parades, etc) but we're generally not especially comfortable around strangers.

I enjoy interacting with family, friends and colleagues, but less so random people passing on the street.

We evolved in groups in which you might recognise or know detail about everyone around you. People often talk about tribes or townships of 150 people.

We're shutting in not from everyone, but from those outside that circle of 150 people.

I think our future virtual lives (building on current social networks) will allow us to very carefully manage our interactions with others. We will be somewhat insulated from the masses whether they are abroad or down the street.

</comment><comment><USER63> This article made me think of the short story Manna:

[http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm](http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm)

The only difference being that instead of being directed with headsets, people are now being directed with apps.

I wonder how long until the world reaches chapter 3?

</comment><comment><USER53> Wow, the meal delivery is like American dabbawala: [http://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/indian-food- delive...](http://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/indian-food-delivery- service-envy-fedex-n156291)

</comment><comment><USER64> Shaming introverts. Nothing like hitting someone who can't fight back.

<comment> saiya-jin I am an itnrovert, but believe me, what this article describes (albeit maybe a bit overblown) is a sad story even from my perspective. Introvert != being inside surrounded by 4 walls. In fact, for people like me, being in nature & mountains, alone or with friends, has amazing mental soothing effects

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> Instacart, Handy, and DoorDash have totally changed the experience of being a new parent. Nothing makes you want to pay someone to solve your problems like not sleeping for a month.

</comment><comment><USER66> > They released a study monitoring the social behavior of 169 people making > their first forays online. The web-surfers started talking less with family > and friends ...

Does that factor in the amount of communication happening online via messengers, chats or just Facebook comments on someone's live events? It seems that at least portion of this communication has shifted online, not got supplanted by online.

</comment><comment><USER67> From my perspective, it's generally the working culture (long working hours) of the country/city/communities that make people "shut-in" \- not the fact they order online. What choice you have if you work from 8 am to 9 pm? I assume delivery guys would be "shut-in" as well if their job obligations wouldn't take them outdoors.

</comment><comment><USER68> I dislike the sharing economy term. I'm an occasional Airbnb host, and frequent guest. That, to me, is sharing, or frequently is, especially if you're only renting a room.

Almost all of the rest is now. "Spare capacity" economy, "arbitrage economy" or "serving economy" would be better terms.

</comment><comment><USER69> I agree with many of the points in this article, though I think it's interesting that this strikes a chord. Because this is just a more micro version of the macro-economic chase for comparative advantage and efficiency, where we outsource production to developing countries, whether it be clothing or call centers, or whatever. Same end goal right? Cheaper than doing it yourself, implying that you free up your own resources to do... well more [service oriented/ white collar] work. I guess the one thing about the shut-in economy is that if we can think about these social issues, then there's hope we can also think about slave labor, or child labor, etc. when they are employed by major businesses (the original "apps") we buy from all the time.

</comment><comment><USER70> The point of view of the author is left-depressive. Maybe that's the reason why the comments get into depression issues

Having an easy job-opportunity as a delivery-person, or Uber-driver or freelance-(anything) is a good thing, not a bad thing. If you enjoy doing shopping maybe is a good thing that you can make shopping for others as a living.

Who is a happier? The person cleaning the apartment while you're working or you?

If you're getting home at 1am, stressed, unhappy, already thinking of tomorrow's work, and he/she is getting home to share a nice family dinner... Who is happier?

</comment><comment><USER71> The Albert service seems ripe for abuse. People unknown entering your home? At least a full time maid is a traceable person... Seems like the opportunities for an airbnb-style break-in are rampant.

<comment><USER72> As I understand it, these are actual employees of Alfred. No different from any other person you let into your home to do work.

</comment></comment><comment><USER73> An interesting article, but I wonder about the parts about social class. They argue that "social class can be defined by the chores you don't do" and that "luxuries usually afforded to one-percenters now stretch to the urban upper- middle class". Presumably these people are still working jobs to pay for their lifestyle (perhaps spending their freed up time working), and one person's job is another person's chore. Is the difference is that tech workers tend to enjoy their jobs?

</comment><comment><USER74> Obviously these services are useful and can save you time now, but they are, generally speaking, rather expensive. That means you end up saving less and probably will be working for more years rather than retiring early.

I think it's a fallacy to think these "saved hours" translate directly into additional paid work. Most of the folks using these services are in salaried jobs, and don't benefit financially by working an extra few hours a week.

</comment><comment><USER75> Urbanization, clerk type jobs and the information age discourage us to have human contact. But it's expected since in apartment buildings you tend to be overwhelmed with the amount of people who are around you: you wish you could talk and meet with some of them, but it will never happen, because urbanism tend to de-socialize people: apartments are build like prison cells.

Other services like uber, couchsurfing, airbnb, meetup, want to do the opposite.

</comment><comment><USER76> What happens when shut-ins have families - and consequently don't know other parents or kids? Things start to go downhill from a life experience perspective.

<comment><USER77> I actually think a lot less people would be shut-ins if they had kids.

All those 'menial chores' are actually become interesting because you're 'not just doing the grocery shopping anymore'. You're taking you kids shopping so they can explore the supermarket with them. They'll ask questions about what you buy and why you buy it. Of course they'll nag you to buy something for them as well.

Kids will nag you to go out to the park, to the museum or whatever other local attraction there is and along the way you'll get social interaction which helps balance things out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> I'm living in a developing country and I'm glad online grocery delivery exists.

The nearest supermarket is 30min walk away, taking a cab would cost money and time too (I don't have a car) and the nearer wet market (about 15min walk away) is just a huge mess with everybody looking unhappy, prices needing haggling and quality being much lower.

My quality of living has gone up a lot since then and I'm saving a lot of time as well.

</comment><comment><USER78> How is this different than me hiring a handyman to put up the shelves bought 2 months ago that I never found the time to put up?

Is it different in scale or in kind?

<comment><USER10> In kind... probably not. Perhaps if you'd have said 'fix some electric work that I couldn't do', in that case it'd be different as this article describes work that anyone could do. e.g. they'll talk about expensive $5.000 a month apartments having awesome functional kitchens installed, yet everyone orders food.

In scale... well the handyman is a one time thing. But it seems a lot of new tech workers making $100k a year are fine spending $5k on ordering dinner 5 days a week for $20. That's kind of weird compared to all the centuries before. But at some point it might become more like the drycleaner: a service outside your home that's more expensive, but more convenient and not necessarily much fun. Perhaps cooking will become a once a week hobby type of thing, with everyday food not becoming a case of preparing lunch or dinner, but rather a case of choosing fashionable and exotic lunch or dinner, much like shopping for clothing. Who knows.

<comment><USER35> Plenty of non tech workers order food every night for dinner. Plenty of non tech workers have cleaning services. That has existed for 40+ years. Changing it from phone ordering to online ordering doesn't change it that much.

Grocery delivery and some of the other things are a bit newer, but they are also more niche.

What has changed is the employment relationship between the people doing the work and the companies. You used to hire a cleaning company and they had employees that came out, now you hire an independent contractor via Handy. To me it seems all supply side and not really demand side. This article is all about the demand side.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER79> How sick Capitalism can be in twisting what we think we need away from what's actually good for us. The Rat Race is so very very real.

</comment><comment><USER80> I prefer to just not be so busy. Busyness is not a virtue. But then, I guess with that attitude I'll be working for Alfred one day.

</comment><comment><USER81> Yes, I'm afraid the world is going on a direction where there will be two kinds of people: those serving coffee at Starbucks and those going there to order coffee and work off their laptops.

(Or maybe it's even worse and they'll stay at home and order their cups online)

It's a dystopian analogy, but one that's sounding more real every day.

</comment><comment><USER82> You'd think that ordering from one service ("WindowRun") around the same times, the same days, would deliver a familiar face now and then. Nah.

People are abundant, flexible, and most of all disposable.

</comment><comment><USER83> "NEVER LEAVE HOME AGAIN."

[http://archive.ncsa.illinois.edu/prajlich/forster.html](http://archive.ncsa.illinois.edu/prajlich/forster.html)

</comment><comment><USER84> Anyone else having trouble with Medium articles this week --- menu items transparently displaying _over_ the article? (Android/"internet" app)

</comment><comment><USER85> But then when the 'servants' are replaced by robots people will complain that 'jobs' are lost.

</comment><comment><USER86> It was not in that article - but I wander how do the guys using it feel about the security implications of it.

</comment><comment><USER87> VR headsets will exacerbate the issue, and make it more popular in media.

</comment><comment><USER88> Any Alfred users in SF yet? Thoughts? Seems interesting.

</comment><comment><USER70> Please, please stop the freaking vacuum cleaner...

why, god, why?

</comment><comment><USER89> We are becoming a society of eloi and morlocks

</comment><comment><USER90> A truly interesting article. Thank you, killwhitey.

Wait, what?

</comment><comment><USER34> Good job Lauren ... I really enjoyed reading the article ... NYT caliber indeed but I wish that you could give more space to workers so they could express their points of view regarding the whole situation.

<comment><USER91> Seconded - there are some interesting/challenging social dilemmas ahead for the 1st world in particular.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> The lingering question for me now seems to be if these people can afford purchasing the services of Alfred & Co, why didn't they pick or hire a maid to do all the domestic chores & errands for them???</comment>


Apology from Geeklist - <AUTHOR> http://gklst.tumblr.com/post/19734620901/geeklist-and-a-public-apology <comment><USER2> I could care less about Geeklist but from a purely analytical perspective: this is so "how not to write an apology" that someone ought to take it apart and do an annotated version of it as a lesson to the community. It literally starts out in its _first sentence_ by undermining itself.

Incidentally, publicly threatening the job of someone who criticizes you (as a tit-for-tat for them "threatening your brand") is one of those slip-ups for which no apology is going to stem the tide of drama. I'm sure this will all be forgotten in a week, but until then: Geeklist is the villain and just needs to roll with it. As long as they're in this PR hole, maybe they should tie someone to a train track and make some demands.

<comment><USER3> > that someone ought to take it apart and do an annotated version of it as a > lesson to the community.

I'm sure this isn't what you had in mind, but I couldn't help myself. I'm not claiming this is what they were actually thinking, but it's how an upset, uncharitable reader might take it, which is who you'd want to address in an apology.

>Hi everyone. We never meant to offend any person and are very sorry as we clearly have.

Read: If you felt offended, there is something wrong with you, not us.

> Geeklist is all about inclusion of every geek. Male and Female alike. We > hope you'll forgive the company and founders and use this as an opportunity > to hire more women, support women in tech and their great achievements and > promote a healthy work environment for all.

Read: Diversity boilerplate goes here.

> We did not create the video at question. It was created out of love for > Geeklist by a great Woman entrepreneur at Design Like Woah for us.

Read: Some of our best friends are women.

> She makes shirts and made awesome ones for us. She also goes way out of her > way to help us ship to our men and women alike globally who love our brand.

Read: "Ship to our men and women alike"? Sorry, that awkward phrase was a result of our last minute copy-paste effort to make our language more gender neutral.

> She is fighting to grow in a male dominant sector and marketing to her > client. Please support her and buy her shirts. > <http://www.designlikewhoa.com/>

Read: If you don't support the video she made for us, you are anti-female- empowerment. Flipped the script on you, didn't I?

> [ Correction: Just spoke to Gemma, her videographer owns it and she is > trying to contact him (thanks so much Gemma)]

Read: Oops, disregard everything I just said.

> As for our handling of the twittersphere. We could have handled it better. I > know Shanley personally, have skyped and emailed her many times and > interviewed her for a job at Geeklist. She is an awesome candidate that as a > startup I was very sad the timing was not right to work together.

Read: We turned down Shanley for a job because she's an incompetent, crazy bitch. Ignore everything bad she says about us--it's just sour grapes.

> She is an awesome candidate that as a startup I was very sad the timing was > not right to work together.

Read: Did I mention she is crazy and you shouldn't listen to her? Bullet dodged.

> Of our 5 person team 2 are women and I am certain they can speak on our > behalf as respectful gentlemen in the workplace who create a welcome > environment for all.

Read: We are so gentlemanly we come to work wearing top hats and monocles.

> I also own a business with my wife where we have over 350+ women employees.

Read: I have a wife. Someone who has a wife cannot be sexist or gender-biased. QED, motherfucker.

> I've built my career over 15 years working to make this world a better place > for women, mothers, and children.

Read: I am Mother Theresa. My personal conduct is above reproach.

> In my wildest dreams we would never wish to offend any woman [or anyone].

Read: No-one likes PR shitstorms.

> The initial request made sense and we were discussing finding Gemma to take > it down, when we got taken off guard a bit by her continued comments.

Read: The bitch kept mouthing off to me, which hurt my fragile male ego.

> We handled those poorly. We apologize as well if our handling of the tweets > offended anyone.

Read: To reiterate: if you were offended, you are a thin-skinned whiny weakling.

> In exchange, please direct this media attention to Gemma's company and > support her company by buying her shirts.

Read: Did I mention she's a woman?

> A women entrepreneur in the valley who used our logo and the fact we wanted > shirts to help promote her business to her clients too. Tech geeks.

Read: DID I MENTION SHE'S A WOMAN?

> We are sorry.

Read: Fuck you.

<comment><USER2> For comparison's sake, look how Coda Hale handles this problem:

<https://twitter.com/#!/coda/status/182858775382851585>

140 characters. Note the advanced trick he employs of explaining himself while _simultaneously owning the problem_. The fundamental technique there: demonstrate (somehow) that you understand the concern and that the concern is _valid_.

(Your annotation is more cynical than mine would be; the interesting discussion though as far as I'm concerned is "the mechanics of how to apologize effectively in an open letter").

<comment><USER3> Exactly. We fucked up. We are sorry. We have taken down the video. It won't happen again. Done. That's all you need to say. Anything more and you're just making it worse.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> "We never meant to offend any woman and are very sorry as we clearly have." and "In my wildest dreams we would never wish to offend any woman."

This is pretty frustrating, although I certainly accept that it's probably unintentional. I was offended by their behavior, and I'm not a woman.

I also don't appreciate the defensive "but I have tons of black friends" rhetoric. I don't care that they don't self-identify as sexist, and that their friends don't think they're sexist. I want to know that the really, deeply understand the problem and the subsequent feedback, and what is going to change moving forward. They're going to ask the producer to remove the video, but are they going to stop threatening people on twitter?

</comment><comment><USER5> Hm, I wonder if this will be deleted as well? The two submissions of the Storify article were:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3740378>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3739913>

I'm a little concerned/confused as to why. If the apology is HN-appropriate content then I'm a little surprised that the reason for the apology isn't.

<comment><USER6> Well, if that isn't a bunch of BS, then I don't know what is. I'm guessing a flag army took care of them, but there's no way to know from here.

<comment><USER5> Yes- if it was a flag army removing the content then that itself says something concerning about the Hacker News community.

<comment><USER7> <crickets>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> They still seem to be missing the point. The worst part wasn't the video, which is a forgivable offense.

The fact that the founders openly threatened the woman who was complaining and their contract with her company as a means of shutting her up is egregious, and their only reference to that behavior in their apology is this:

        We could have handled it better.

</comment><comment><USER9> "Never Ruin an Apology With an Excuse!"

The best advice I ever read... from a readers digest about 15 years ago.

<comment><USER10> Wonderful comment!

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Against my better judgement, I figured out what this whole thing was about in the first place: <http://storify.com/charlesarthur/oh-hai-sexism>

</comment><comment><USER12> _tl;dr version_ \- We didn't mean to offend women. We love women. We even know some women and sleep with them and stuff. (We aren't _those_ kind of geeks who can't talk to girls.)

</comment><comment><USER13> I am still surprised that a company like geeklist runs into such a trap[1]. Shouldn't they be knowing better? I mean, social networks are what they build, they should know the effect.

The whole internet was abuzz for a week about implied sexism and bad handling of women. But yet, they run into just the same hole. It doesn't even require to discuss the validity of the argument to see the problems in their handling: someone with high twitter reach complained about a questionable thing that they could easily drag in the trash bin (with a few phone calls). Was it even worth to pick that fight?

[1] Just to be clear: its a trap layed by themselves.

</comment><comment><USER14> The lesson here is that defending a brand does not always mean getting defensive. Brand owners have to look at what is being attacked and decide how close it is to the core of the business. A t-shirt fashion shoot video is not the core of the Geeklist business model, so once it became a brand liability it needed to be cast off.

An example of a brand attack that DID call for a head-on approach was the iPhone 4 antenna issue. Those complaints directly attacked a core feature of one of Apple's core products. Apple needed to go on defense because they could not just cast off the iPhone 4 hardware design without very serious financial damage.

Brand owners also need to keep the personal and professional separate when their brand is under attack. Brands are created by a series of decisions. It is one or more of those decisions that are under attack, not the people who made them. In this case the issue was the decision to associate the Geeklist brand with this type of video. Decide whether or not that decision needs defending--don't mistake it for a personal attack.

<comment><USER15> "Cast off what is useless" --Bruce Lee

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Classic non-apology apology:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-apology_apology>

</comment><comment><USER10> So....is this an apology or a design like whoa marketing scheme??

</comment><comment><USER6> I expected at least a reference to them taking down one of their repos[1] to hide further criticism, but found none.

[1] <https://github.com/geeklist/jennifer>

<comment><USER17> What was it?

<comment><USER18> It was a repo of bug reports to geeklist. Someone opened an issue regarding the video

See <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3740970>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference ~ _M. Twain_.

I for one am at a loss here.

</comment><comment><USER20> Wow, this scream-sexism-at-everything police is becoming very annoying. I do not believe that the video is offensive at all.

I do think the Geeklist founders came across as petty in their constant back and forth with the lady. But to be clear, that has nothing to do with the video being offensive. It isn't.

<comment><USER4> I have to say, your annoyance likely (assuming you're a man) from a fairly privileged place. You can afford to be "annoyed" by other people voicing concerns, because this issue doesn't affect your professional life everyday.

If you want to learn more about why the video itself offends some people: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_objectification>

<comment><USER20> Sorry, your link did not help me learn more about why there is such a huge uproar _in this specific case_ beyond "meh, someone's always offended by everything."

Also, I'd say the said video is a very weak example of sexual objectification and in the grand scheme of things, it actually hurts the cause.

<comment><USER4> I think you might be overreacting. There isn't a "huge uproar." I think I and most of the other commenters I've seen are pretty calm. You can be offended and say so without being out of control or irrationally angry. I don't think that the two men in this case are evil or something. But they are emblematic of a culture that many here have a problem with.

You seemed incredulous that people are offended by the video. I pointed you to the link not because it would make mention of this specific case, but because it explicated the concept of sexual objectification and its place in feminist thinking. It's a fine example, if not an extreme one. She's being flirty in a sexy outfit because she expects that will sell shirts and bring attention to the Geeklist brand. She is trying to relate to viewers as an object of sexual desire, and to transfer that desire onto the brand. It happens all the time because, at least in our culture, it works.

<comment><USER20> I can state the same about you: you seem incredulous that people are not offended by the video. The appearance of the women in the video on their free will is proof enough.

<comment><USER4> Not at all. I haven't said that anyone should be offended. I understand why someone might not be offended. But there is a difference between not being personally offended and posting multiple comments around these threads to the effect that you find those of us who are offended annoying.

The broader point is that there is reason for some (ie. feminists, or those who care about sexism within startup culture) to be offended. Voicing that opinion shouldn't be met with threats and complaints. And they shouldn't be marginalized as "sexism police" or "screaming" or whatever else just because they state their opinions.

<comment><USER20> _But there is a difference between not being personally offended and posting multiple comments around these threads to the effect that you find those of us who are offended annoying... And they shouldn't be marginalized as "sexism police" or "screaming"_

Likewise, I understand this might offend some people. But there is a difference between being offended and attacking those not offended.

And those not offended or even involved with the video shouldn't be marginalized as "sexist" and or accused of objectifying women.

<comment><USER4> What you're saying in no way applies to any of my comments.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I guess they didn't check this post on HN just yesterday? <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3733825>

</comment><comment><USER22> Can someone do a TLDR on the video?

<comment><USER23> Or better, a link to the video itself?

<comment><USER24> it was here <http://vimeo.com/27758336>

tldw: a cute girl in panties and a tshirt with geeklist logo.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I hope they issued a personal one to @shanley as well. Their argumentation was way worse than the video.

</comment><comment><USER26> Ignoring the issue/apology, I find it incredibly off-putting that the designer who got up in arms about a racy video promoting Geeklist promotes t-shirts with a pantless woman on her home, FAQ, and Pricing pages: <http://www.designlikewhoa.com/>

Focusing on the issue, I would say we are no better off now than before the Twitter flame-war. A personal appeal and open discussion probably would have helped, though.

And oh - her site gets a lot of attention now. That's cool.

<comment><USER27> You're missing a lot of information here. Design Like Whoa is the person who made the racy video in question. The woman who got pointed out the sexism on Twitter is Shanely Kane, who works as a developer for Basho and has nothing to do with Design Like Whoa's website.</comment></comment>


Tim Cook Lashes Out at White House Officials for Being Wishy-Washy on Encryption - <AUTHOR> https://theintercept.com/2016/01/12/apples-tim-cook-lashes-out-at-white-house-officials-for-being-wishy-washy-on-encryption/ <comment><USER2> Posted yesterday.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10898840](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10898840)

And, article from The Guardian:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10901038](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10901038)</comment>


How to lose $6,537 and create a product nobody wants - <AUTHOR> http://www.ryrob.com/how-to-not-lose-6537-and-create-a-product-nobody-wants/

<comment><USER2> Why out an NFL player buying your equipment to facilitate illegal activity directly prohibited by his profession's collective bargaining agreement?

<comment><USER3> It may not be for illegal activity but showing a specific customers purchases for the sake of a blog post is a terrible business practice. I'd never buy anything from this person.

<comment><USER4> Totally agree. I just don't think buying this product automatically correlates to illegal activity. It's not a bong or a pipe. It's a plastic box.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > _I shipped a sample to each of those 2 factories, but never heard back from > them (never do this)._

I wish he'd gone into more detail about why this should not be done.

<comment><USER6> Hey Pavel! I updated the post with a more in-depth explanation, you can check out the details right below that paragraph in the post.

<comment><USER5> Thanks!</comment></comment></comment>


Learnings from reading 50 books in a year - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@mozzatoale/what-i-learned-reading-50-books-in-a-year-8351ca4013ba <comment><USER2> Cliché? Do we need another "HN classic" (one of the highest upvoted posts of all time and a damn lot of comments and recommendations) book recommendation? Or we wait until the beginning of summer?</comment>


SpaceX Falcon rocket explodes on landing after delivering satellite to space - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35340734 <comment><USER2> There's something really special about the fact that Musk himself posts these videos of SpaceX's "failures", and has generally been very candid about his setbacks with this companies. So often narratives of great achievements are told/shown in such a way as though it were destiny, like those involved were geniuses who knew the right path all along. That's not how real work -- of any kind, looks like. What a tremendous lesson for young people everywhere to see Musk share his work -- the successes and failures -- with the world.

I loved Gene Kranz's "Failure is not an option," but outside of the specific context in which it was used, it is a terrible slogan. Failure, actually, ought to be the only option, in the sense that if you are never failing you likely are falling short of whatever it is that you could potentially accomplish.

Nowadays there is this idea of instilling in kids a "growth" mindset, in the sense that you ought not praise them for "intelligence" or how smart they are, since these things are immutable. Rather, praising them for their effort and perseverance, which can be nurtured, likely helps instill in them these very values, which often are far better predictors of success than intelligence itself.

I hope at some point we collectively start thinking about great founders, or companies, or amazing things society builds in the same way. Instead of story after story praising Musk for being the "real iron-man," maybe we should publicize the electric car movie where you see him walk into a garage in the middle of the night filled with cars with production issues, with a clear look of despair on his face. SpaceX is now the leader of private space aviation, but at one point Musk had to bank the company on a single launch because, well... all other ones had failed.

He is undoubtedly the innovator of our generation. But it's not because he is smart (which he undoubtedly is), or a visionary (again, ditto), but in addition to these things, he is working very, very, very hard. And has failed -- a lot. And picked himself up every time.

This is incredibly inspiring stuff, and makes you root for the guy (and companies) even more.

<comment><USER3> Successful people aren't successful because they succeed a lot - they're successful because they fail a lot, and don't let it deter them.

Failure is success, as long as you learn something from it. If you learn nothing, then you failed before you even started.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Larger size video: [https://www.instagram.com/p/BAqirNbwEc0/](https://www.instagram.com/p/BAqirNbwEc0/)

<comment><USER4> I missed it live because of the lag. After watching this, it's definitely a lot better than many reports make it seem. It actually seems like it was a successful landing, but then tipped most likely due to the motion of the ocean combined with the relatively small supports. For an object that long and thin that's swaying, I'm surprised it doesn't have longer supports.

<comment><USER5> It tipped because a leg didn't latch, as mentioned in the article AND on the instagram video provided by @elonmusk.

<comment><USER6> They said something about ice on TV?

<comment><USER7> Apparently the thing that receives part of the leg and get it latched to the rocket was frozen (because of fog at the launch pad) and resulted in the leg being free and allowed to move.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The headline and article make it sound like this was some huge failure, while in reality the mission was a success and the landing a test which almost worked out.

<comment><USER9> It's honestly quite amazing just how well on-target that thing landed, given the speed it's doing it at, and the distance it went. Tipping over due to a small component failure is roughly the same category of issue as a small css styling oversight on a website on launch.

<comment><USER10> Good thing that CSS doesn't explode quite as literally and violently as rocket fuel does, then ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I would not say it exploded on landing, it landed just fine. When you break apart a device full of things that like to go boom and provide a spark your bound to have an explosion.

Got to love the audacity of landing on a barge in the ocean instead of land. So why is he doing this? Is it possible he wants to be as neutral going forward? Will he start building rockets on a seaborne platform as well? Go full Bond super-villain on us. Seriously though, why not buy an island.

<comment><USER12> Going back to where you came from cost far more fuel. Every kilogram of fuel you save is extra profit.

Also some places you are not allowed to land with a rocket.

<comment><USER13> No, the cost of the fuel is almost entirely irrelevant; the entire fuel for the rocket launch is less than 1% of the total cost.

The motivation behind saving fuel by landing on a barge is that the fuel thus saved can be transformed into additional speed of the upper stage, enabling a larger payload.

<comment><USER12> Literally what I said 'Every kilogram of fuel you save is extra profit.'. They make profit by sending payload into space.

<comment><USER13> > _" Every kilogram of fuel you save is extra profit."_

No, it's not: Additional performance (i.e., payload capacity) does not get them more money from a customer if that customer's payload doesn't require more performance.

If you want to be pedantic you might argue that more performance allows for more customers, but then not _" every kilogram"_ is extra profit, because the spectrum is not continuous.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Apple Developer Member Center is available again after Downtime - <AUTHOR> http://developer.apple.com/membercenter

<comment><USER2> Thank god! My account expired right before the outage and I've been waiting to try out iOS7!</comment>