Why Only One in Four Teens is Employed - <AUTHOR> http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/07/why-only-one-in-four-teens-is-employed/

<comment><USER2> Possibly related is that we as a society seem to be treating teenagers more as old children and less as young adults in recent years. Such treatment may lead teens to see themselves in the same way and be less likely to _want_ to seek employment without external pressure to do so and may lead parents to seek to limit that sort of pressure.

<comment><USER3> To me it seemed the opposite. Working at a minimum wage job to have a few bucks to spend on pizza or clothes seemed childish. Working a minimum wage job has no connection or relevance to adult life unless you're planning on being poor. It's economically meaningless compared to the money a kid expects to earn after college, so what matters for a teenager's adult life is to get a leg up on college admissions by working on academics or extracurriculars.

Now, that attitude may not be accurate. Maybe working at McDonald's or some other typical teenage employment provides valuable experience or some skills that will be relevant to their adult life. However, few if any middle-class parents tell their kids that, because they don't want to encourage them. For kids to get used to working a minimum wage job -- to get a taste of self- sufficiency too early -- to believe that life is _possible_ without college -- these are not things that ambitious middle-class parents and teachers want for their kids. They don't want their kids to see life as a highway with exit ramps and rest stops at various points along the way. They want their kids to see life as a railroad to lucrative professional employment, with any departure from the path resulting in a catastrophic derailment.

<comment><USER4> I strongly disagree that "working a minimum wage job has no connection or relevant to adult life." The self-sufficiency I gained when working for minimum wage at 15 helped put me on the path toward "lucrative professional employment" years later.

The experience of being paid according to your actual value, particularly when you're young and virtually worthless, is an important lesson you don't find in academics or extracurriculars.

<comment><USER5> the Dilbert's author described that great reason for getting a minimum wage job while being a teenager ( [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870435350457559...](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704353504575596372042140924.html) )

"One of my earliest childhood jobs involved shoveling manure at my uncle's dairy farm in upstate New York. Things were going well until my uncle explained that no matter how well I performed, I would never be promoted to farmer. Or even cow. I had hit the manure ceiling.

I consider that experience my first economic stimulus package—the unwelcome realization that my current job was a dead end. While my classmates were building snowmen with carrot noses (mostly the girls) and carrot genitalia (mostly the boys), I started to do some serious career planning about how to get out of the fecal relocation profession and into the warm embrace of a loving corporation. I studied hard, and I earned money for college by mowing lawns, shoveling snow, shoveling even more manure, and (my personal favorite) shoveling frozen manure covered with snow. I saved my meager funds, and with the help of my parents, who both took extra jobs, plus a few scholarships, I clawed my way into college."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The Wall Street Journal editorial page is, and always has been, garbage. Poorly sourced and poorly argued, whenever I accidentally come across it I always end up in a foul mood. Not that the other papers of record, Washpo and NYT, are all that great either.

</comment><comment><USER7> We need more of this kind of breakdown from our economic and financial media.

<comment><USER8> This is just some guy with a blog, he's not the media.

The media are Very Serious People, and things like empiricism and statistics aren't part of Good Journalism. They have a much more impartial system, where they ask a democrat and a republican, then average the responses.

<comment><USER7> Actually, they don't have an impartial system at all; that's the concept, but not the practice. Journalism isn't just 'we report everything everybody says', true journalism means digging to find out the actual facts and report those, and then possibly include the opinions of those who have a vested interest in interpretation.

And saying 'just some guy with a blog' is not an argument. That's just the old trick of 'shoot the messenger'. What, exactly, qualifies someone with a television camera or a printing press as more credible than someone who is writing for a blog? Why would that make any difference as to the whether the content is true or not? It doesn't. When studying journalism in college, you learn that when someone tries to discredit the source of an article rather than attacking the article on merit, then it's a near-certainty that the content in the article is true.

<comment><USER9> Jbooth was being facetious.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Historic 30 year debt bubble collapses are a bitch, and there isn't much useful either side, left or right, has to say about them. It's like arguing whether to turn the wheel left or right after the car has gone off the cliff: it'd be funny if I wasn't in the car. Decimated productive capacity plus easy credit and the associated malinvestment and over-consumption equals charlie foxtrot every time.

Sociologically speaking, what I find curious is that so far the young haven't really started shooting back in this generational war. It will get interesting if and when they do.

</comment><comment><USER11> Where are the statistics to suggest that people 55+ are taking all the minimum wage jobs? Why does this author mention "Bush" four times?

The blogger is editorializing worse than the WSJ here (not that the WSJ article was much better). Essentially all of the counter points were mentioned in the WSJ article up front, then they focused on minimum wage worsening the effect.

I'm not necessarily agreeing with WSJ on this one, but this guy's article is just as meaningless.

<comment><USER12> Statistics and correlation are not meaningless. The criticism of the WSJ may be (probably was) unwarranted, but the rest is not meaningless.

<comment><USER8> It was entirely warranted, because they're a newspaper and they were reporting in direct contradiction of the actual facts on this subject, in order to fit a pre-conceived narrative.

<comment><USER11> Did you actually read the WSJ article, or just the rebuttal to it?

The actual article mentions almost everything he does, then focuses on wage increases as worsening the effect. This blogger decides to focus on 55+ employment, which he already wrote about. How is one pre-conceived narrative and the other not?

<comment><USER8> They provide zero evidence for their contention that wage increases "worsen the effect", and their phrasing implies that everything would be peachy keen if not for a minimum wage increase which caused this unemployment.

Meanwhile, if you look at the graph, you see a straight line downward which flattens in 'ok' economies, and plunges during recession. Was flat through 2007, when the minimum wage increase was enacted. No mention of the fact that this phenomenon of jobless recoveries has applied to most jobs at most payscales over the time period they're highlighting. No mention of the fact that the minimum wage was higher in real terms for most of the 20th century, and teen employment was higher then (not that the one is likely to cause the other).

I'll admit that they did include the graph. Reading the article does not make the author sound more honest or truth-seeking, though. Check out some of the applause lines.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> There have been other minimum wage increases, right? Wouldn't it be possible to see if those correspond to other drops in teen employment?

</comment><comment><USER14> Given that old people actually vote (after a little more research to corroborate it) I would put money down that the minimum wage will raise soon.

Or spin another way what company could you create that would have minimum wage type jobs that you would trust someone older to do, but not a teenage?

edit: spelling

<comment><USER15> "Corroborate" not "collaborate", I think.

<comment><USER14> thanks, fixed

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> State laws frequently call for higher minimum wages than the federal laws. Our Washington State law is above $7 per hour.

There's also the paperwork burden: Here in Washington State - it's technically illegal to pay a non-family memeber $20 to mow the lawn without filling out pages of L&I forms and withholding a percentage of the $20 and sending a check to the State.

<comment><USER17> _...it's technically illegal..._

Why is the burden on the buyer of the services? Isn't it the responsibility of the mower to have incorporated, then pay him/herself and file taxes?

<comment><USER18> Its the responsibility of the employer to follow employment law, and you can easily end up with the guy you hired to mow your lawn as your employee whether you like it or not.

At the federal level, there's enough special treatment for household employers that its not terribly burdensome, but many states make you jump through the same hoops as a small business (hoops that might be reasonable for a small business but can be quite burdensome for a household employer)

Also, incorporate? One need not incorporate to do business.

<comment><USER17> I don't believe your assertion that paying for the service of someone to come around and mow your lawn legally constitutes an employer-employee relationship.

 _One need not incorporate to do business._

Indeed, I was trying to be brief. Incorporate, register an LLC or DBA, or simply informally conduct business.

<comment><USER18> See IRS publication 926 (<http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p926.pdf>)

"You have a household employee if you hired someone to do household work and that worker is your employee. The worker is your employee if you can control not only what work is done, but how it is done. If the worker is your employee, it does not matter whether the work is full time or part time or that you hired the worker through an agency or from a list provided by an agency or association. It also does not matter whether you pay the worker on an hourly, daily, or weekly basis, or by the job."

"Household work is work done in or around your home. Some examples of workers who do household work are: ... Yard workers ... "

"If only the worker can control how the work is done, the worker is not your employee but is self-employed. A self-employed worker usually provides his or her own tools and offers services to the general public in an independent business."

\</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment>--

If you hire Jack from Jack's Gardening Service, and he comes with a trailer full of equipment and deicdes to use a riding mower the the bulk of your lawn and a weed eater around the edges, and sometimes sends his employee Jill instead, then he isn't your employee.

If you hire your neighbors son John when he's home from college for the summer, offer him to use your push mower and never mind the places too small for it to get to, and when John is out of town and offers for his dead-beat friend Jacob to mow your lawn that week and you decline, then John is your employee.

In my examples, there is certainly a grey area between John and Jack, but my point stands: the guy who mows your lawn can easily be your employee. Its best to err on the side of employee, because the law is very unforgiving if the IRS decides someone is your employee but you have been treating them as a non- employee.

<comment><USER17> _The worker is your employee if you can control not only what work is done, but how it is done_

That's the only sentence in there that actually defines what an employee is, and I fail to see how someone mowing your lawn fits the requirement of dictating "how work is to be done".

A guy who mows your yard every other week -- most likely along with a host of other yards in the area -- is most certainly _not_ an employee. Sure, he could _try_ to make a case if he were injured, but no normal-thinking human is going to interpret "provides occasional service" as "employee".

 _and when John is out of town and offers for his dead-beat friend Jacob to mow your lawn that week and you decline, then John is your employee._

Preferring the services of one person or company over another has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the definition of employee.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I don't think the WSJ is lying to make it's point.The graph can be interpreted differently. Up until 2007 employment seems to be following a fairly regular cycle. In fact right before it seems to be going back up, then there is a sudden drop. That could be what the WSJ is talking about/

</comment><comment><USER20> I am still amazed at the fact that the minimum wage was so low. In Ontario, the general minimum wage is $10.25 increased in March 2010 from what used to be $9.50 .

The student minimum wage (which applies to students under the age of 18 who work 28 hours a week or less when school is in session or work during a school break or summer holiday) is $9.60 increased from what used to be $8.90.

</comment><comment><USER21> Where is the comparison to the employment ratio of the _entire_ workforce? Without this it is difficult to look at subsets (like 16-19 yrs old, 55+) and draw much of a conclusion. I would guess that population/macro effects probably tell a lot of the story.

</comment><comment><USER22> Correlation causation?

<comment><USER9> I'm not sure he proposed a causation, but he did show a negative correlation with an increase in minimum wage (which suggests _not_ causation).

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I think it's generally accepted at this point that the WSJ has become the conservative mouthpiece of Murdoch since it's acqusition in 2007.

</comment><comment><USER24> Has anyone put forward a better theory as to "Why Only One in Four Teens is Employed"?

<comment><USER25> I was wondering the same. The question isn't actually answered by either the WSJ article or this blog post. Are high school diplomas and college enrollment up? Or is the same thing happening that is also happening in Spain: massive youth unemployment due to, plain and simply, a lack of jobs?</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Replace Pixel 2, EOL support October 2020 - <AUTHOR> Pixel 2 not officially supported past October 2020. Pixel 2 users: what are you doing to replace? Which new device? Or are you going to install different OS onto the phone and keep using the hardware?<p>For those replacing, anyone going the PinePhone route? <comment><USER2> If the PinePhone does not have the exact _same_ apps that you will find in the Play Store or App Store, then it is not a viable replacement for the Pixel 2 user, unless they are Linux fans or enthusiasts.

It's easier to get a new Pixel device or iOS device, but this duopoly really needs a credible alternative and the PinePhone is really not an option unless it has the latest Android and can run the same Android apps without the hassle.

Looking at the list of OSes it supports, it just slapping on Linux distros running on a tiny screen. That tells me its for Linux enthusiasts and that's too bad. I'd rather buy and iPhone 12 or a new Pixel device when they both come out than to do this ROM flashing business like its 2010.

</comment><comment><USER3> I am hoping they launch the Pixel 4a then. It looks like a good contender for my needs, it has a finger print reader.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I've found grapheneos, /e/, UBPorts, etc don't support Pixel 2.</comment>


Want to rescue rural America? Bust monopolies - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/04/20/want-to-rescue-rural-america-bust-monopolies/ <comment><USER2> _" I started a manufacturing company in Little Elm, about 35 miles north of Dallas, to produce the first-ever automatically retracting syringe to eliminate the risk of nurses contracting HIV through accidental needle sticks. The syringe received rave reviews from nurses, hospital executives and public health officials, a major grant from the National Institutes of Health and robust private investment. But when my partners and I tried to sell it to hospitals, we were told time and time again that even though it was a better product — a lifesaving product — they weren't able to purchase it. The primary supplier of syringes, which controlled 80 percent of the market, structured an arrangement with a vast network of hospitals that essentially closed our industry to new firms for good."_

A market in which buyers are not free to choose better products is not a free market.

A market in which new entrants cannot compete _fairly_ against established players is not a free market.

A market in which innovators have to get permission and pay established players for "access" (think ISPs) is not a free market.

And yes, a market in which economic and political power is concentrated in large corporations geographically clustered in a handful of giant metropolitan areas... is also not a free market.

Those corporations have both strong incentives and the means to change the rules of competition to their advantage.

<comment><USER3> That's the thing though, that is exactly what a late stage "free market" looks like. What you need is a heavily regulated market that prevents exactly this behaviour.

People need to stop wishing for the "free" market. The term is abused by orators and manipulators who prey on peoples desire for a market which is free in the spirit of the word, and deliver to them a market which is technically "free" and horrible.

<comment><USER4> 'People need to stop wishing for the "free" market. The term is abused by orators and manipulators who prey on peoples desire for a market which is free in the spirit of the word, and deliver to them a market which is technically "free" and horrible.'

Don't call it the free market. Call it what it is: COMPETITION.

"Free market" implies "I can do what I want", but frankly we don't WANT people to be free to pull anti-competitive shenanigans. Competition is the priority, not "the free market".

<comment><USER5> > "Free market" implies "I can do what I want"

I always though free implied free from non-consensual acts. It's not much of a free market if your actions are non-consensual (1).

(1) Defining what makes an action consensual is difficult but doable.

<comment><USER6> Difficult indeed.

An ordinary American internet user consents to countless pages of legalese in adhesion and other unread contracts (TOSs, privacy policies and so on) everyday day. These days, every website, piece of software, digital service or product comes with pages upon pages of contracts to which the user must consent to even walk in the door. Reading all of them is easily a full time job.

So, no one has coerced anyone into anything, just a bunch of consenting parties in theory.

In practice, getting consumers to throw away their rights and consent to stridently anti-competitive behavior by companies seems kind of easy.

Taken in the sense of an economy of mutual consent, "free market" is too low a bar to hop over. I can see why people don't think that the barebones style of "free market" is very free.

<comment><USER5> This is a deep discussion to have: too deep for a medium like HN. That being said...

Your points pre-suppose parties consented to a dispute resolution system: one that is based on arbitrary boundaries and quite monopolistic (1).

> I can see why people don't think that the barebones style of "free market" > is very free.

So, I agree that it is hard for people to understand what consent is when they were never given a chance to choose which dispute resolution system(s) they can participate in.

(1) Example being I was born in the USA so somehow automatically consented to the rules of the land.

<comment><USER6> What you say is true much of the time, but it is also true that consumers often do "choose" their arbiter. The aforementioned adhesion contracts often stipulate a private (non-government) arbiter, which the consumer (probably you, too) consents to of their own free will.

I see your points. But I kind of feel like we were having a rather nuts and bolts discussion about how to improve security in Linux, and then someone chimes in that we should probably rewrite everything in Haskell.

If achieving a free market requires a complete upheaval of all of our governments and laws, then the idea isn't very useful.

<comment><USER5> > If achieving a free market requires a complete upheaval of all of our > governments and laws, then the idea isn't very useful.

The idea is __extremely __useful: act consensual to others. There is no better basis of a social system than this. Having conversations like the one were having now is really all we need. To force the ideas on others in anyway, especially through democracy, would be hypocritical.

A social system based on utility, which is basically all social systems we've had throughout history, is violent, aggressive and dangerous. No wonder history repeats itself.

<comment><USER7> The existence of property is based on a non-consensual model for the purpose of utility.

<comment><USER8> Which is forced upon others through threat of violence. And was obtained via violence in the first place.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Highly relevant: Matt Stoller in The Atlantic:

"How Democrats Killed Their Populist Soul In the 1970s, a new wave of post- Watergate liberals stopped fighting monopoly power. The result is an increasingly dangerous political system."

[https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/how- dem...](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/how-democrats- killed-their-populist-soul/504710/)

<comment><USER10> This really opened my eye: a long time ago, there was actually a meaningful difference between voting D and voting R. I can't really imagine voting in such a context, but it sounds nice...

<comment><USER11> How can you call LGBT rights, women's rights, police consent decrees, environmental issues, and health care, just off the top of my head, meaningless?

<comment><USER10> Ds talk a better game, but they rarely walk that talk. Take just your first example. W's _first year_ in office, he wanted to standardize "civil unions" that would have entailed all the same rights as "traditional marriages". Of course, lots of "conservatives" were against that, so W reached across the aisle. Crickets. Ds decided they wanted to preserve that issue's political value, so it was more than a decade before gay and lesbian couples in conservative states had access to these rights.

<comment><USER12> What's your point in your false equivalency?

Are you implying that the 20 million people that now have medical coverage because of Democrats pushing for Obamacare isn't worth it? Was that all "talk"?

I'm seriously trying to understand your "equivalency" position.

Let me know what the Republicans would have done for health care? Right now it seems that the only thing they've done is to actually limit universal health care, so we have less than 100% coverage.

Are the two parties the same on health care?

Right now I don't trust anybody that says the two parties are the same, since they are clearly very, very different. In fact, it seems the only people that say that are Republicans that don't have a better argument?

Are you a Republican? Or maybe you fall under the auspices of a white-male demographic that bias towards conservatism?

<comment><USER13> > Let me know what the Republicans would have done for health care?

"Obamacare" (formerly known as "Romneycare") _is_ a republican healthcare plan. One of the big reasons we claim that our two major parties are approximately equivalent is the Democrats' habit of passing Republican policies.

> since they are clearly very, very different

There are differences between R & D that are significant, but they are minor compared to all the ways they are the same. You can be 100% sure that politicians will side with their establishment, monied donors.

> Are the two parties the same on health care?

No, but they're both _bad_. Yes, Republicans are not going to improve healthcare, but _neither are the Democrats_. Did you know Feinstein said a few days ago in a town hall that she has no intention to support single-payer?

> it seems the only people that say that are Republicans

Assuming things like that only makes you sound partisan or uninformed. I'm not a Republican, so now you have a counterexample.

<comment><USER14> > No, but they're both bad. Yes, Republicans are not going to improve > healthcare, but neither are the Democrats. Did you know Feinstein said a few > days ago in a town hall that she has no intention to support single-payer?

I don't know Feinstein's motivations, nor am I knowledgeable about the internal politics of the Democratic Party, but do you think her rejection of single payer has more to do with politics than with actual belief? The "public option" was realistically the closest America ever came to a single payer system, and that proposal was largely sunk by Republicans in Congress, though some Democrats in right-leaning states also rejected it. Are Democrats just trying to compromise in a right-leaning political climate, or are they truly the same?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Her two examples, the medical and agriculture sectors, are two of the most regulated industries around.

A lot of these "monopolies" result because of regulation pushed by combination of well-meaning and self interested people and corporations (see bootleggers and baptists).

Her examples suggest it'd be better to focus on the marriage between corporations and government, which allows companies to focus their energy on getting gov to hassle their competitors vs improving their own product.

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

<comment><USER16> I don't know why you are getting downvoted because you're absolutely right. The first three markets named (airlines, telecommunications, health care) are all heavily regulated and the barrier to entries are controlled by the government, not natural market forces.

Monopolies are not all bad. Sometimes a company has a monopoly because they just offer a better product (Amazon, Google) and they shouldn't be punished for that, especially when there's no government intervention that exists to protect them.

<comment><USER17> Amazon is a infested with scam storefronts. And Amazon is really compelled to do anything about it because they have no competition.

Airlines have huge market barriers: getting and maintaining huge, expensive, gas guzzling aircraft. That is not a regulation barrier.

Both telecomm and health care are intwined monopsonies backing the play of regional monopolies (cartels) backing federal congresspeople.

I just don't buy any of your comment as fact at all.

<comment><USER18> Airlines have new entrants all the time. Sure it's costly to start a new airline, but not by the standards of available capital. But there are also lots of regulatory barriers, available landing slots and terminals for example. For some reasons we think it necessary to have government run airports.

Amazon has to compete with other online retailers and local retailers. How many scams it allows is a measure of it's competence, not it's market power. If I get scammed on Amazon they are getting a charge-back and will have to deal with my credit card company.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Drive through many American small towns and it looks the exact same.

A strip mall with a Subway, a couple national fast food joints, and if you're big enough, Wal-Mart.

There are literally 1000s of towns with this copy and paste setup-- how could this not be detrimental when money is going to a huge corporation every time?

<comment><USER20> Object-oriented economy. Rather than reusing code, we reuse business plans!

<comment><USER21> If you haven't read Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson, he refers to people doing just that (reusing proven business plans) as three-ringers. I.e. people who got their business plan in a 3-ring binder, and are implementing it without much in the way of critical thinking about why it works or ambition to do much beyond implementing it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Multiple other comments in here about this particular niche that the subject of the story went into (medical supplies), but what came to mind to me was a similar story about how it's a similar situation with the golf ball market [1] and from many other stories with eyeglasses (Luxottica artificially dominates the market).

These are both cases where it's not so much anti-merger/monopoly law that's the culprit, but the general structure of the legal system that favors those with the larger pockets and forces out upstart manufacturers.

1 - [http://www.golfdigest.com/story/ball-wars-costco-files- lawsu...](http://www.golfdigest.com/story/ball-wars-costco-files-lawsuit- against-acushnet)

<comment><USER18> Patents are government monopolies created to incentivize inventors to share their inventions so others could build upon them. The fear was they'd hide their IP behind factory walls and innovation would be slow.

Now patents are used by those who don't make anything and often don't even invent anything in order to blackmail those who do.

<comment><USER23> "Intellectual Property" is the use of the State's violence in an attempt to enforce an artificial scarcity upon something that is naturally non-scarce - information. It is inherently antithetical to a free society and always ends up hurting the everyman (and society at large) in the long run.

<comment><USER24> When I hear "IP" I now perceive "rent." Rent is drag and is a prime mover in income inequality.

<comment><USER23> The two are not at all alike, though. Rent is payment made in exchange for the use of a physical, scarce resource. Information, in contrast, is inherently non-scarce.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> > In 1994, at the height of the AIDS crisis, in which I lost several friends > and a beloved employee to the disease, I started a manufacturing company in > Little Elm, about 35 miles north of Dallas, to produce the first-ever > automatically retracting syringe to eliminate the risk of nurses contracting > HIV through accidental needle sticks. The syringe received rave reviews from > nurses, hospital executives and public health officials, a major grant from > the National Institutes of Health and robust private investment. But when my > partners and I tried to sell it to hospitals, we were told time and time > again that even though it was a better product — a lifesaving product — they > weren't able to purchase it. The primary supplier of syringes, which > controlled 80 percent of the market, structured an arrangement with a vast > network of hospitals that essentially closed our industry to new firms for > good.

That last bit sentence me a bit odd. Rather than go into the details of incentives of hospitals and why they would forgo a better alternative, the author just attributes it to "monopoly". If this is true, there is some deeper misalignment with incentives in this industry that won't go away by just removing product providers that control a significant portion of the market. Or something that the author doesn't know about the industry that would make this decision make sense.

<comment><USER26> I can speak for a different market in a different country (but I also lived in the US for a decade): IT freelancing in Germany.

I get paid well, but there is something really strange going on: I can't get my contracts directly. I always have to go through a company whose sole business it is to be an intermediate between the (large) company that wants to hire a freelancer and the freelancer. Note that those freelancers are not employed by that company and the relationship is pretty loose. The business pays the intermediary and they pay you, it's a per-project contract.

The large companies won't hire someone directly even though they would save lots of money (and freelancers would get more). Suspicious as you guys are you probably think that well, there _must_ be a logical business reason that it actually really _is_ worth the additional money being spent on the intermediary. For example, finding and bundling lots of freelancer resumes. While that sure is a reason it isn't nearly sufficient for an explanation, not only because they actually do precious little for the money they keep. Also, the legal side can't be the reason either when I look at how the contracts between me and the intermediary are set up.

To give one example from a very large client I worked for for 1.5 years as a freelancer, the reason I was told they go through the intermediary is that it makes their accounting much easier. Since I once worked for that company and experienced the exact same thing I was not surprised: When I worked for them in Silicon Valley I saved the company a lot of money by looking for an apartment myself. I ended up sharing one with somebody else. However, the expensive all-inclusive one-bedroom apartment I had had in Mountain View had the advantage that there only was a single bill (paid by corporate Amex card). The (far cheaper) shared apartment I got instead produced a handful of different invoices (furniture rental, cheques for the rent instead of Amex, etc.), so the company told me they would have preferred to pay the much higher amount from a single source. Which I don't quite understand - I _do_ have some business background and understand accounting, in the computer age, what's the big deal? In the freelancer scenario they said it just works better with their SAP system then having lots of individual contracts. That company also had a big program to "streamline" and centralize their purchasing, which of course means having significantly less firms to deal with as a goal that overrides other concerns.

So, it seems the large businesses prefer to work with other large businesses, no matter how much money they could save. We don't even need to argue whether and/or how much legal and business reasons are valid or not, I think the only thing that matters for the purpose of the discussion is that the effect exists, and that that means "market" is more and more a lie the more of a countries wealth creation is done by big businesses. You don't need to look for actual "monopolies" in the classical sense, those firms quite voluntarily restrict themselves (and again, the bottom line is that it exists, how justifiable it is from the individual firm's POV is a different question, let's assume they know what they are doing and that it makes sense for them).

<comment><USER27> When large corporations are comfortable in their revenue side (approaching monopoly) they obsess over risk. Every contract poses a risk, including litigation risk. That's probably why. GE is obsessed with outsourcing right now, they even outsourced the mail room. A side effect is this promotes inequality as you can no longer get a job in the mailroom and work your way up to CEO. See the hbr ideacast on this

<comment><USER28> Thank your for the explanation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Most legislation, counted in line or pages, is written by industry. Legislators aren't writing this themselves.

And there's little in the way of taking a strong anti-trust (competition law) in politics. The Obama administration watched over, and permitted mergers that very blatantly reduce competition: multiple airlines, and drug companies. And it was more aggressive overall in applying competition law compared to previous Republican administrations. So, point is, even with a Democratic president, competition law isn't pressed strongly enough, let alone with a Republican in office where it's apparently "we need to recognize more natural monopolies, and help them whenever possible".

About the only thing all Americans might be able to agree on when it comes to politics, is the increasingly obvious need for a constitutional amendment getting money out of politics.

</comment><comment><USER30> Does anyone else think that nearly all huge companies exist due to monopolies or near-monopolies? MS has monopoly on desktops. Apple on cell phones and tablets. Facebook on social networking. Google on search. I think any market without at least 3-4 strong competitors will devolve into one dominant player who can milk more from the customer base.

<comment><USER31> Android has a higher market share than iOS. How does that make Apple a monopoly?

<comment><USER32> A more apt comparison would be Apple (iOS) vs Samsung (Android) vs LG (Android) vs Motorola (Android).

And Apple has the most mobile device profits.

Still, I agree: nowhere near a monopoly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Rural America could bust monopolies tomorrow if they voted differently. They've done it before, and they don't need to be rescued by us for that. More like they need to rescue themselves and the rest of us.

<comment><USER34> Unfortunately voting differently also means voting for social change in other areas, which rural populations usually aren't eager for.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Welcome to the new world of corporate mercantilism.

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

<comment><USER18> Mercantilism is how capitalism dies. Self interested capitalists buy monopolies from politicians until no free markets remain.

Today we have Trump favoring Coal, Oil, military contractors, the Sands corporation (Sheldon Adelson) and corporations searching for special favors such as Tariffs, etc, because of their contributions to his campaign.

Hilary would have favored Wall Street banks, hedge funds, "green companies" in search of federal handouts, unions, etc.

We have the political system we have because of massive contributions by moneyed players who want either handouts or rules to keep competitors out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> First things first: ISPs

<comment><USER37> I feel you. I started a small ISP in Montana a few years ago. We're getting into laying our own duct and fiber.

Once I get the machine running, I want to focus on providing tools and information to others looking to do the same thing.

I've been running a Slack channel called ISP School for about a year now to bring together other interested people. Email me at firstname.lastname@example.com if anybody wants an invitation.

<comment><USER38> is TSI a CLEC?

<comment><USER37> Nope. We argued that we were providing data services under the FCC definition of utility. The only real person who got in our way was the city attorney. He said that internet didn't qualify as Montana Code (circa 1950) only mentioned telephone and telegraph.

So we registered with the PSC as a telegraph provider...

<comment><USER39> Awesome. Do you actually have to sell telegram services?

<comment><USER37> Legally, I don't think so. But we did build a little Raspberry Pi based machine with a telegraph key. It needs some more work, but there are people who are legitimately wanting to buy the service.

<comment><USER40> There are people that want to buy telegraph service?

<comment><USER37> Surprisingly yes. I think it falls into two categories: nostalgia and hipster.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> I wonder if, without monopolies, rural areas would be served at all with the types goods and services that these companies bring them. It might not be economically feasible!

</comment><comment><USER42> They need to deregulate the entire medical industry, so anyone can start a medical practice. Right now, doctors control the supply of new medical licenses, and they're incentivized to restrict the supply so their own wages go up. The official line is that they can ensure high-quality medical treatments this way, but that's just something they tell themselves to feel good about it.

One of the consequences is that doctors are beholden to large corporations who have teams of lawyers to handle legal issues and malpractice lawsuits. Since there are limited slots, some of them even work in foreign countries until they get experience to land a job in the US, which is a waste of talent.

If anyone could start a medical practice, a new syringe company could sell to smaller practices that haven't yet been mired in enterprise contracts.

Right now, in order to even build a hospital you have to submit "evidence of need" to the government to get approval. Imagine if every startup had to convince a bureaucrat that they were needed: fewer people would be interested in starting one.

It's probably worth considering moving medical negotiations from insurance companies and employers to the consumer. I don't know that it's very common to call up multiple doctors and find the one with the lowest price, because you're paying your insurance company to do the negotiation for you. Taxing employer-provided health insurance as income might remove the incentive for them to provide it at all. Together with deregulating the entire medical industry, it would make it possible to buy cheap treatment without insurance, which might be enough to make insurance less important.

<comment><USER43> There's an awful lot of middle ground between what we have now and "anyone can start a medical practice".

<comment><USER42> If I'm reading you right, you're worried about e.g. some crackpot calling himself a doctor who rubs moonstones on an infection to make the evil spirits go away. An unfortunate consequence of "anyone can start a medical practice" is that the crackpot would be allowed to operate, but the negative aspects could be mitigated by:

* Somebody starting a "Yelp for doctors"

* The government could give some approval stamp to doctors using all the existing restrictions, and you could always ask a doctor "Are you XYZ-approved?" It would be a very serious crime for a moonstone-carrying crackpot to lie about his governmental approval, and his status could be verified on a government website. People who solely use government-approved doctors would still benefit, since licensed doctors would still be competing against unlicensed doctors, so there'd be a limit to how much the government policy could distort the market.

* People who repair your sidewalk or furnace often advertise "licensed, bonded, and insured". A furnace can burn your house down, which seems a similar risk to medical malpractice. You could ask your doctor if he's licensed by the government, has put his personal capital into a bond, and is insured.

<comment><USER43> I'm not terribly worried about literal crackpots.

I'm skeptical that "Yelp for doctors" will in practice be more efficient than up front regulation about who can provide certain services.

I certainly think there are impediments that should be removed, just not all of them.

<comment><USER23> You're skeptical it is possible for something to be more efficient than the US Government?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> I largely agree with the observations in the article although I believe the author misstates the intention of government with _" But in the 1980s, folks in power decided bigger was better, and conventional political wisdom followed suit."_ The issue with the 80's was that the US economy was in a very weird place where we had low growth and very high inflation (called 'stagflation' at the time). The mechanics of the economy were adjusted not to make 'bigger better' but instead to break out of the state of stagnant inflation.

That the changes weren't undone in the 90s when much of the economic forces were re-aligned was a problem, but understandable since nobody wanted to go back to that mode. We are living in the opposite local minimum of growth and deflation where the economy is growing but inflation isn't happening because real income is going down.

That said I believe that making single supplier contracts unenforcable would be an interesting change to try.

<comment><USER45> This was just after US got off the gold standard, and around the time of the savings and loans crisis. More recently, Medicare and drug prices is one of my favorite examples, and the same logic apply to things like the NSA.

<comment><USER44> A fair point. Missing the connection to the NSA though :-)

And repeating that I agree with the basic premise that single supplier contracts should be made unenforcable however to do that you have to provide a way to penalizing companies that do things to enforce them.

<comment><USER45> The point is that the NSA is funded by government debt, which is their way of printing money. One of the reasons why we got off the gold standard is government spending.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Most 'monopolies' that exist today are artificial - This is because they are only monopolies to the extent that they are able to:

1\. Keep buying up advertising to make sure that any potential competitor cannot afford eyeballs.

2\. Keep hiring up as much technical talent as possible to make sure that any potential competitor doesn't get access to that talent in order to build a competing product.

3\. Keep subsidising the cost of their own services (at a loss to themselves) in order to make the market non-viable for any potential competitor.

It's a scorched-earth approach. Any company that has the money can create an artificial monopoly for themselves by engaging in any of the three activities above.

However, those activities are increasingly expensive because they drive up advertising costs and engineer salaries.

If companies keep doing this, eventually, they'll make the market non-viable even for themselves.

</comment><comment><USER47> This is behind many (maybe most) of our problems in America. For example, this is the biggest source of what's wrong with our healthcare system.

Businesses have built up "moats" throughout the system, leading to high prices and poor service. This is the source of the "cost disease" that makes our healthcare too expensive.

Competition is part of the very foundation of capitalism. Without it, capitalism itself doesn't work. So we better figure out some answers.

</comment><comment><USER48> I found this book rather interesting: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_Capital](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_Capital) it reflects over essentially the same problem (to make a Marxist critique to capitalist pretenses of freedom, fairness and its claims to optimality.) Among other points, the book spends time arguing how Corporate Capitalism is fundamentally monopolistic.

</comment><comment><USER49> Apparently this is true not only of the US but also of Japan.

I just finished watching a nice dram series called 'Shitamachi Rocketto' which might be of interest to folk on HN.

</comment><comment><USER50> As someone who loves rural USA and especially Texas, how could we spread the word better? How could we make it more attractive? Do you think there are other possibilities to revive it besides changing government policies? Let us brainstorm about it!

</comment><comment><USER51> Arguably this also affects workers in major centers who have to move to high- cost housing areas just to be employed while not materially improving quality of life.

</comment><comment><USER52> Well that's deregulated capitalism 101.

</comment><comment><USER53> Where are the trust-busting candidates?

</comment><comment><USER54> Oh you mean like Comcast?

</comment><comment><USER55> But our savior Peter Theil said monopolies are good and the thing every company wants to become!

</comment><comment><USER56> The article never establishes what is wrong with rural America in the first place. Why does it need rescuing? Why are businesses with large market share a problem for rural America? The premise that monopolies are bad is never explained.

The author never establishes any of this. How did this make it to the front page?

<comment><USER57> > The article never establishes what is wrong with rural America in the first > place.

She presented numbers related to how many new businesses were formed recently in small towns vs large towns. Sure, she didn't go through the hoops to explain that more new businesses = more new jobs = more local wealth, but would that have even contributed to the article?

> The premise that monopolies are bad is never explained.

The article _did_ attempt to explain this through an anecdote about a superior syringe being blocked off the market by another company that held a monopoly on medical devices & arranged contracts with buyers to lock them in.

Maybe she should have been more explicit - and I'm not trying to say that the article's good material for HN - but she did at least _touch_ on most of those points.

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> If a monopoly is hard-won and not being abused, what's the problem?

</comment><comment><USER59> Or make it profitable to build shit in this country again. If you taxed the hell out of manufactured imports, and loosened up the regulations that are choking US businesses to death, you'd have less meth-and-fentanyl scourged abandoned mill towns.

<comment><USER60> Which specific regulations do you think are choking US businesses to death? I see a lot of handwaving about oppressive regulation, but I don't see anything careful cost-benefit discussion of which regulations are oppressive.

<comment><USER59> You've never worked in a blue-collar industry, then. It's a death by 1000 cuts. When your workers are frustrated by the amount of red tape and regulation surrounding their day to day work tasks, something is wrong.

<comment><USER28> Every factory, the explanation hours for the kindergarden- do not jump, do use the stairwell rails, do read all the rules, do not use the robots for rodeo.

And if you complain about the stupidness of regulations, the responsibility shysters barricading proclaim you hysteric or careless. My personal favorite is lumber-work, where in some of the heavy duty protection equipment you are supposed to wear is so heavy, people make exhausted stupid mistakes and get injured because of the security measure. Example references the Kevlar jackets and trousers- lately partially replaced by lighter plastic protection gear. The worst part is - some regulations introduce routine- and routine kills.

There are good examples, like the Japanese railroad signal system though, so its not all bad.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> No! Rural America is responsible for the death of millions, Rural America is the responsible for holding the progression of human race and most important: rural America is who created the monopolies. Free market can only exist where states aren't.</comment>


A working Firefox Windows 8 Metro prototype, status update 3 - <AUTHOR> http://www.brianbondy.com/blog/id/135/

<comment><USER2> How did you get Javascript to work? As far as I know Metro apps cannot load or execute code dynamically (e.g. you can't use LoadLibrary or VirtualProtect). Are you using a Javascript interpreter rather than a JIT? Or are you using the Microsoft Javascript engine?

<comment><USER3> Microsoft has made an exception to the Metro sandboxing rules for hybrid Metro/desktop browsers (including Internet Explorer):

<http://www.brianbondy.com/blog/id/129/>

[https://wiki.mozilla.org/Windows_8_Integration#Internet_Expl...](https://wiki.mozilla.org/Windows_8_Integration#Internet_Explorer_10_vs_Regular_Metro_Apps)

[http://www.techradar.com/news/software/operating- systems/win...](http://www.techradar.com/news/software/operating- systems/windows-8-browsers-the-only-metro-apps-to-get-desktop-power-1073930)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Firefox on android has felt very disappointing to me; I'm really interested in seeing whether this effort can do a little better to enhance the WP7 experience. (I use Android currently, may look to switch off, to which platform I don't know, in the next year or so)

<comment><USER5> Try the nightlies. I have no idea why on Earth they keep the stable build in the Market, it's god awful compared to the nightly builds. They're ... actually usable.

<comment><USER6> Here's a link to install the nightlies: [https://wiki.mozilla.org/Mobile/Platforms/Android#Download_N...](https://wiki.mozilla.org/Mobile/Platforms/Android#Download_Nightly)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Looks like slightly themed version of current Firefox Mobile running on a tablet:

[http://www.geeky-gadgets.com/wp- content/uploads/2011/09/Fire...](http://www.geeky-gadgets.com/wp- content/uploads/2011/09/Firefox-Android-Tablets.jpg)

<comment><USER8> TFA says that the prototype is based on the Fennec (Firefox Mobile) XUL code. But since it's so early and so ugly, I expect the styling to become more Metro-y as development progresses.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Glad to hear that Firefox is looking at providing a Metro Themed browser (even if it's just to get away from IE), but looking at the icon set from the pictures, I think they are missing the boat on the Metro style.

<comment><USER3> The design work hasn't even started; this prototype is built with the same front-end code and theme as Firefox for Android. (Actually it's using a mish- mash of two different Android themes, because of a quirk in the way the prototype is built.)

The icons in the prototype were all designed for Android, and all will be replaced by real Windows/Metro icons in the final product.

[Usual discosure: I am a mobile Firefox developer.]

<comment><USER9> That's good to know.

Is the front end code that is coming from Firefox for Android just for the windowing gui or is the rendering engine the same as well?

<comment><USER3> The rendering engine code is shared across all platforms (Android, Linux, Mac, Windows, etc.).

The "mobile" front-end code is currently used by Firefox for Android/Maemo/MeeGo. It's separate from the "desktop" front-end code used by Firefox on Windows/Mac/Linux.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Pre-Built Private Cloud: Is it Marketing or Innovation? - <AUTHOR> http://thesolutionsarchitect.com/2011/08/12/pre-built-private-cloud-is-it-marketing-or-innovation/

<comment><AUTHOR> Blogger Reality Show Poll - Did you Like my Post? Yes indeed.</comment>


Bring on some HTML5/JavaScript/Node.JS rap - <AUTHOR>

Here are some free beats to spit some dev lyrics ;-)<p>https://my.doctape.com/s/EvP0IB <comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, it's ok to drop some lines on Ruby also ;-)</comment>


Copy machines, a data security risk? - <AUTHOR> http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6412572n

<comment><AUTHOR> Amazing how easy it is for anybody to get hold of sensitive data. I am not sure what is the purpose of a hard disk in a copy machine. They should not have these. The copy machine wants extra money for deleting images or encrypting.

</comment><comment><USER2> Discussed here last month: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1282513>

In short: the disks are needed to hold multi-page scans - think collating multiple copies, double-sided printing, etc. The problem is that normal file- system deletion is not a secure wipe, and files can be recovered with simple tools.</comment>


Ask HN: Whats the most annoying thing about Netflix (if anything)? - <AUTHOR>

What are your biggest gripes(streaming,selection,speed,etc.) <comment><USER2> Their recommendations.

Despite their overtures to help this, they've really been chasing a red herring. Their big $1M challenge got people to give them a 10% better way to predict what an arbitrary movie's rating would be. But that doesn't actually help.

The only thing I want to know is a list of movies that I'm likely to love (and perhaps a warning list of those I'm likely to hate). It's quite alright if they mistake a 4.5 for a 5, and it's alright if there are false negatives.

But they still do a lousy job on the actual recommendations, because they're trying to solve the wrong problem.

</comment><comment><USER3> Availability, I am not sure why(damaged, lost, whatever ) parts of series are unavailable but they don't seem to replace them. I have added several TV series that are a few years old(stuff that isn't on everyone's must watch list but still available on DVD at amazon) and approx. 30% is unavailable.

</comment><comment><USER4> The lack of content to be streamed, which has more to do with the studios than with Netflix.

</comment><comment><USER5> Scratched discs which hang right at the most exciting part of the movie.

</comment><comment><USER6> not being able to clear an account's movie history (whether for privacy or just a change in preference that affects recommendations).

no android client.

</comment><comment><USER7> Can't get Netflix (streaming) outside of the US.

<comment><AUTHOR> sux man</comment></comment>


Chelsea Manning's 14 days in solitary for suicide attempt is 'cruel and inhuman' - <AUTHOR> https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/chelsea-mannings-14-days-solitary-suicide-attempt-cruel-and-inhuman <comment><USER2> Cases like those of Manning or Snowden present an perplexing conundrum for governments. If you do evil, scummy stuff and want to keep it hushed up, you need to make an example of leakers, no matter how well meaning they may be, in order to discourage further leaks. However, by abusing what the public sees as whistle-blowers, you lend credence to their accusations (You wouldn't bother to punish them if they were just making this stuff up, would you?).

It's a catch-22. If you don't punish the leakers, you'll look bad when more whistle-blowers reveal more of the evil stuff you've been up to. If you do punish the leakers, you confirm your guilt. The only way out seems to be to _not_ do evil, scummy stuff in the first place!

In a few hundred years Western civilization has gone from enjoying bear-bating and cat-burning as popular forms of entertainment to being shocked when somebody is strapped to a board with a wet cloth over their face. This is a fundamentally _good_ thing. The public's steadily decreasing appetite for cruelty and violence is what has made things such as Gandhi's use of passive resistance possible. Had Gandhi been born a century or two earlier, things would have gone much more poorly for him!

The notion that the world is a cruel, evil place and that states must, at times, act without moral compunction is a popular one. However, this notion is out of step with the reality that the human race is gradually becoming less tolerant of brutality and that secrets are becoming increasingly hard to keep secret. It is not naive idealism to expect our governments to hold themselves to a higher level of conduct. What few gains the U.S. may have realized from NSA's surveillance program pale in comparison to the loss of confidence U.S. citizens have in their own government and the increased distrust of U.S. institutions and even private companies worldwide.

The U.S. government needs to become more open and more idealistic in order to regain the social license it has lost. The Stasi approach to enforcing citizen loyalty is less viable today than ever.

<comment><USER3> You say that cruelty is slowly decreasing in the public, yet there is still a widespread lust for war and a glorification of soldiers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It still sears my mind that someone could be locked in a cage by our own government for exposing this: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0) (Collateral Murder video)

People actually died in that example. I am unaware of anything but hypotheticals regarding anyone killed as result of Manning's "leaks".

<comment><USER5> It's a controversial video. Additional context:

[http://gawker.com/5515720/stephen-colbert-grills- wikileaks-f...](http://gawker.com/5515720/stephen-colbert-grills-wikileaks- founder-on-helicopter-video)

[http://www.politifact.com/truth-o- meter/statements/2010/apr/...](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o- meter/statements/2010/apr/14/julian-assange/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange- tells-colbert-per/)

[http://www.politifact.com/truth-o- meter/statements/2010/apr/...](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o- meter/statements/2010/apr/12/robert-gates/gates-said-leaked-military-video- shooting-iraq-doe/)

<comment><USER4> Although the links are interesting, my general sentiments on the subject hold. I more than suspect this particular event (Collateral Murder) was but one of far too many and remains a common theme. I am reminded of :[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm6hC2oW5P8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm6hC2oW5P8) \- Blackwater drive-by recreational shooting spree. There are others too.

The military, notably with its cozy relationship with private contractors, has created a substantial rift between itself and civilians. Arguably no longer having much to do with defense, its occupations are highly dubious and without the support of many (the majority?) who involuntarily fund it. The DoD has exclusive exemptions from auditing and maintains a hefty black budget. If it intends to bleed the nation dry without reasonable transparency and accountability, I'm willing to pardon a margin of error among whistleblowers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The beatings will continue until morale improves.

</comment><comment><USER7> ... is torture.

<comment><USER8> Should countries let military prisoners kill themselves?

<comment><USER9> Solitary confinement probably doesn't prevent death by suicide.

Solitary confinement and 24 hour arm's length supervision might, while it's happening. But it doesn't do anything to prevent the desire and probably makes the thought worse.

<comment><USER8> There are probably stats on it. I'd have thought solitary would reduce immediate success in suicide and hence also reduce immediate desire. But yes, it's going to be very bleak to be under that sort of regimen and I'd also expect the thought to be worse.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> It might be the right thing to do to torture, to add more pain to, someone who already feels so much pain that she attempts suicide, by some standard that I cannot comprehend. We might have to accept such a standard as the cost of diversity.

However it seems obvious to me that it is impossible for any sound-thinking person to argue that it is justifiable to obstruct suicide attempts. One of the values upon which capitalism society is based is the notion of private property, which entails that we have exclusive control of things we _own_. If it is justifiable to obstruct suicide attempts, that would imply that we do not own our bodies. Well, there's a name for such people: _slaves_.

<comment><USER11> What do you mean by "as the cost of diversity"? What does diversity have to do with it?

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I can't believe this is flagged. Absolutely astonished. Why can't I vouch for a post?

<comment><AUTHOR> I posted it knowing it might end up being flagged. It probably falls foul of "Off-Topic: Most stories about politics"

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> American democracy! And yet they want to export it to other countries too.

After recent wikileaks leaks, I think we can all agree how deeply corrupt system is.

<comment><USER14> It's rather ideological and hilarious for you to use the United States Armed Forces non-democratic and non-civilian justice system to criticize the American democracy.

In one tiny post you demonstrate sad ignorance to the subject (anyone with even a -passing- knowledge of civilian vs military justice is laughing at you) as well as the sad bias which empowers your triumphant ignorance, so bravo.

Out of curiosity, which nations Military Justice System do you prefer?

<comment><USER15> To be fair, the premise of losing your rights as an American (or as a human) because you decided to serve your country is a fucking joke.

<comment><USER14> A) You don't lose your rights by being a soldier, but you do face military based restrictions and fall under the jurisdiction of the Uniform Code of Military justice.

B) The premise of operating a successful military is more important than operating a, uih, civilian military.

<comment><USER13> I asked a simple question, I don't know why people tries to ignore it, or start throwing everything they got other than giving answer.

In which logic putting an unstable person who committed suicide recently in solitary, is acceptable?

My question maybe hurt's so bad, since your have thrown everything you got at me, otherthan giving simple answer.

Your military justice system is fucking worse than terrorist.

<comment><USER14> "My question maybe hurt's so bad, since your have thrown everything you got at me, otherthan giving simple answer. Your military justice system is fucking worse than terrorist."

I apologize -- I suspected and but didn't fully realize I was dealing with someone who was unhinged.

I have thrown basically _nothing_ at you, and your ridiculous defensiveness here is suspect.

And to call the Military Justice worse than terrorist [sic] exposes you as non-English.

Your rabid bias against America is evident, your overwillingness to use rather petty and ignorant hyperbole is evident, and when someone _dares_ not agree with you, you become unhinged and defensive and quite nasty.

Have a good day, Hater, but know that your immature nonsense does nothing but embarrass yourself.

P.S. will you watch a video of ISIS beheading people as they scream and blood squirts? Will you watch ISIS dropping 24 children into a vat of acid where they scream for HOURS? Your knowledge of military justice and terrorism makes me wonder your allegiance. One would have to support ISIS to find the acid- torture of children to be better than solitary confinement.

<comment><USER13> I am so glad, you fell into that.

You finished your answer with comparing your military system with ISIS beheading. That was what I looking at. Your comparison standard for your military system is ISIS, Wow. You literally proved my point.

Have good day. BTW It is not secret. I am Iranian. But I don't believe in nationality. I am kinda extreme anarchist.

<comment><USER14> "You finished your answer with comparing your military system with ISIS beheading. That was what I looking at. Your comparison standard for your military system is ISIS, Wow. You literally proved my point."

No, it's not, I was mocking you by engaging in the same ignorant and low- effort hyperbole that sadly makes up the bulk of your contribution here. I suppose your limited English skills prevent you from understand ridicule and mockery, so I'll spell it out for you.

Don't you see how you just "fell for it"? How I used outrageous hyperbole to literally make fun of you, and you took it seriously?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Strange how Manning has to suffer without end but Hillary Clinton could be rewarded with the presidency for leaking state secrets all over the world.

<comment><USER13> It is called power.people tend to ignore it, and if you talk they will down vote you. It is as simple as that.</comment></comment>


Start-up NY - <AUTHOR> http://startup.ny.gov/ <comment><USER2> Read the fine print. Not only are there the below requirements but there is also debate on whether or not the agency running the program has the ability (due to poorly worded rules) to kick a business out of it for no reason at all.

A Start up...

Start ups must locate on college campuses. (Renting unused office space or vacant land.)

MUST BE NEW to New York State, recently graduated from a state-recognized incubator, be returning to the state, or be an existing business that's starting a new operation.

ORGANIZED as a corporation, partnership, limited liability company or sole proprietorship.

IN COMPLIANCE with worker protection and environmental regulations

ALIGNED with the interests of the hosting university.

BE ABLE to create jobs in the first year.

BE A STARTUP business or in biotechnology, information technology, remanufacturing, advanced materials, processing, engineering, electronic technology products or other high-tech industries.

CANNOT BE AN accountant, business services company, law firm, medical office, hotel, financial services firm, personal care business, Realtor, restaurant, retailer, utility or wholesaler.

<comment><USER3> Agree. It sounds wonderful on the outside, but once you start reading all the details it gets a little hairy. For example, they do not define what exactly a "business services company" is and is not. Using a broad definition, that could eliminate some tech startups right out the gate. Another example of the broad definition is "financial services firm". Does that immediately eliminate BitCoin or payment processing startups? The list goes on.

I like the idea and more states/cities should follow the lead, but in order to be effective the people implementing these programs need to be clear on what is and is not an acceptable business. The other part of the NY program I was hesitant about was that you are committed to partnering with a university. Doesn't leave room if your business plan pivots and falls out of line with the "interests of the hosting university".

<comment><USER4> Strange. I wonder if it's politics. There's a great idea for pushing tech, but then the anti-banking lobby kicks in, as does everyone else that's anti- business.

Unclear if this got watered down while Bloomberg was in town, or if it's part of Deblassio's class warfare.

<comment><USER5> This was started during Bloomberg's term. The same provisions were there.

<comment><USER6> This is a New York State program, Bloomberg was mayor of New York City.

<comment><USER4> Was it this watered down when the program began? If so, I start to wonder, "Why bother?"

I get the objections... You don't want to incent people who are already here. It still seems like a lot of hoops.

<comment><USER6> This is the first year (roughly) of the program. They (NY State) announced it last year. Many of us in NYC looked at it and were like: "ok, well, no use to us". The thing with NY State programs is that they're almost entirely geared to helping politicians north of I-84. While the NYC region has the bulk of the population, it doesn't control the legislature (so when people complain about NYC's taxes, keep in mind that the state controls the tax structure, NYC has minimal control over revenue).

NYC's programs for startup businesses (digital and otherwise) have been more oriented to eliminating red tape, some real estate help. Lately there's an extremely underhyped effort to get fiber to offices, but the requirements are such that you'd need to be well along in your business to take advantage of it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> As a Syracuse, NY native and a current resident of NYC, I hereby welcome a flood of new business to the state. Come one, come all.

Just pay no attention to the fact that you're taxed to oblivion in every other possible way - state income tax, sales tax, property taxes, NYC residential tax - I think we've even got taxes for your taxes somewhere in the back - hopefully by the time you finish your 10th year as a successful, profitable, un-taxed business, you'll be making so much gosh darn money that you won't even notice your business finally being taxed into oblivion too.

Dreams really do come true.

<comment><USER8> I recently heard that The Beatles paid a 95% income tax.

That seems pretty crazy to us today, but maybe back then they would wonder how we could have the < 40% taxes we have now and properly maintain the roads and bridges and various societal institutions.

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

<comment><USER9> "One for you nineteen for me"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I had filled out their form and asked to be contacted about 6 months ago and haven't heard anything back. Talking to some accelerator people, it seems to be pretty common. Even using their network the accelerator was unable to get useful information about how to use this program. I think while it makes great headlines it might be 3-4 years till they figure out the policies and requirements around this.

<comment><USER4> If it takes 3-4 years, I don't see it happening at all. It requires a mayor to make it a priority.

<comment><USER11> It is a state program.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Previous discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6930718](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6930718)

Previous submissions:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6923744](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6923744)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6595355](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6595355)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5915189](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5915189)

</comment><comment><USER13> Ok, so you want to take advantage of this in NYC?

[http://startup.ny.gov/properties/new-york-city- properties/](http://startup.ny.gov/properties/new-york-city-properties/)

There are a 3 results, all biotech / science in nature. Click on one of em:

THIS PROPERTY HAS NOT YET BEEN DESIGNATED AS A TAX-FREE NY AREA

That's probably a deal-killer for startups wanting to move to manhattan and be tax free for 10 years.

<comment><USER14> Because the program is designed for upstate NY, whose economy consists of Rust Belt remnants, college towns, and Greek yogurt.

<comment><USER15> Pretty sure that's "Greek-style yogurt", unless Greece has has annexed Albany!

<comment><USER2> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greece_%28town%29,_New_York](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greece_%28town%29,_New_York)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> "Eligible businesses must not locate in an area in which they would compete with existing local businesses."

</comment><comment><USER17> Tax free zones have proven to be highly effective. In Dubai there were a number of tax free zones started 13+ years ago just before their economic boom. India's rise to dominance in several service sectors was accompanied by a number of tax incentives.

I'd bet money that this attracts new business to New York especially since New York has people talent in place. Also, if you're competing against a NY firm, they'll have an advantage in their ability to accumulate earnings at a faster rate than an equivalent firm that's burdened with more taxes. Too bad NY can't wave Federal taxes...that would be nice.

<comment><USER18> Dubai has tax-free zones but also put a bunch of money into certain industries.

Also given the way you talk about taxes it doesn't seem you understand what taxes pay for. Like the roads that startups need to drive on.

<comment><USER19> >Also given the way you talk about taxes it doesn't seem you understand what taxes pay for.

I would say the same to you. Roads are usually paid for by vehicle registration fees, gas taxes, etc. Pick a better example.

<comment><USER5> Gas Taxes are increasingly having trouble paying for roads. I think roads are normally paid for by property taxes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Are there any other states doing this? Or municipalities?

In Panama (the country), they do something like this in an area on the former US military base called "Ciudad del Saber" (City of knowledge)[1], whereby the companies based their get 0 taxation on imports/exports, salaries, and some other stuff.

Could this be accomplished by designating areas free trade zones? Here in Miami there are a few free trade zones, but I'm not super clear on their function (mostly see cargo coming in and out of there).

[1][http://ciudaddelsaber.org/en](http://ciudaddelsaber.org/en)

</comment><comment><USER21> I've been seeing ads for this on tv here in southern California. Seems really intriguing.

I'm curious if there are any long-term commitments? Can you redomicile 9 1/2 years in, etc?

</comment><comment><USER22> I found it funny that their current ad, "Don't Back Down",

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuXBcbYvKU8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuXBcbYvKU8)

uses an animation at 0:08 clearly from the STAR experiment at Brookhaven National Laboratory [http://www.bnl.gov/rhic/star.asp](http://www.bnl.gov/rhic/star.asp) which is run by Department of Energy (federal) funding and has nothing at all to do with startup technology, or New York taxes for that matter. The facility does happen to be located on Long Island.

A high-energy nuclear physics experiment focused around a mile-wide particle accelerator is so opposite to what startups aim to accomplish (minimum viable products, small teams, bootstrapping, becoming profitable fast) that the reference is nothing but humorous to me.

Perhaps the implication is that there are very smart scientists in the NY area that one can poach off to work at startups as federal funding for high energy physics research declines. :-(

</comment><comment><USER23> NY has recently taken up arms to make itself a more attractive destination for businesses and entrepreneurs. One of the largest strides that has been made aligns with this link, and is a marketing strategy that makes NY seem more startup friendly. It's unclear whether it's being targeted towards tech/software, which recently has become synonymous with the word "startup", or how much substance there is behind the cloak of marketing.

An interesting and relevant read is Paul Graham's essay on recreating Silicon Valley: [http://www.paulgraham.com/siliconvalley.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/siliconvalley.html)

</comment><comment><USER24> Well fine print aside sure they have lot of hidden clauses but it's a good start I would say. Nice to have Washington State also adopt something like this since now Seattle has a growing Startup community

<comment><USER11> WA waives income tax for startups!

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Note that this program, by design, almost completely excludes New York City (all five boroughs) and much of Long Island. It's geared primarily to upstate.

</comment><comment><USER25> Pay no taxes for 10 years as a start-up in NY? Sign me up.

</comment><comment><USER26> Just looking at the language of the website, I can see who this initiative is catering to: Large organizations looking to cash in on startup cachet and gain a significant competitive advantage over real startups.

Because it looks like those are the only ones that can fulfill the requirements.

Crossing NYC off of my list of places to move to when I'm ready to start a company.

</comment><comment><USER27> There are no taxes for businesses that start up on the moon, so why don't more businesses start up on the moon?

</comment><comment><USER28> Every city should do this now, tax free for years (at least 3 but 10 is awesome). No other requirements because there are many other ways to generate revenue from young companies and you want them to succeed, i.e. Free-to-Play business model somewhat.

</comment><comment><USER29> I got really excited for a moment, then I read the fine print. But, I think is generally a step in the right direction.

How terrible would it be to collect no taxes from startups for the first year, nationally?

<comment><USER30> Most startups aren't paying significant taxes in the first year, anyways, since there will be no profits.

<comment><USER29> Correct, and a startup with low profits might benefit in tax exemption early on for long-term success (and potentially avoiding fundraising early on).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> They show commercials for this all the time all over NY state. Its incredibly misleading. I looked into it the first time I saw it. Like most things it is indeed to good to be true.

</comment><comment><USER32> I am international..especially from india,can I open my startup in ny?, Cant seem to find that for international business owners want to start in newyork. I am an appreneur, we develop mobile apps,would love to open startup in newyork tax free zone. Can I get process for non-us citizen to open startup in new york.

</comment><comment><USER33> Seems like a great way to widen the size of the city. Startups in the Bronx!

<comment><USER6> New York State. Not New York City. The program is designed almost entirely to exclude New York City.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> To those who warn of the fine print -- what did you expect? Even with those conditions, this looks pretty damn advantageous. Go NY.

-SF Startup Scene Employee</comment>


Why You Don't Need a Specification Document Before Talking to a Dev Team - <AUTHOR> https://stanfy.com/blog/why-you-dont-need-a-specification-document-before-talking-to-a-dev-team/ <comment><USER2> If the OP does product development like he writes articles then I too would prefer to gather the specs myself in long "conversations" with him. But concise writing is something one can learn:

In 8th grade we got schematics of a bird feeder and had to provide a textual description from which one could build that exact bird feeder. Time for the assignment: 40 minutes.

> If your mobile app or project is like the Iron Man in our office, I mean if > it can be created in a very short time, then it might not be worth it to > plan all things in advance.

"Replicate this image at 50x50 pixels with these stickers on that wall. Start 30cm below ceiling, align left side with that glass line." Nothing else needed, if one follows this spec it is impossible to do it wrong. Great task for the intern one does not like.

A complete specification does not need to include everything but only the bare minimum to describe the project so that the implementation provides exactly what was asked for. This in fact is what makes specifications good: It must be complete but concise.

<comment><USER3> In real life it is often more to extremes. Either nothing or details that do not add value at that particular case. One of many examples I saw was, when one small feature was described on 10 pages going deep into every single corner case and as a result - less than 1% of those was used. In such cases it just makes more sense to run it in short experiment cycles.</comment></comment>


How I've built a profitable Slack bot as a side project in Rails - <AUTHOR> https://pawelurbanek.com/profitable-slack-bot-rails <comment><USER2> Great project and writeup! But I think a one-time fee makes very little sense for a hosted SaaS product, and you should definitely switch to recurring billing. Instead of a one-time fee of $29, I think you could charge $3 per month, or $29 per year (20% discount.) You could also charge more for larger teams.

<comment><USER3> Companies are using this, though? The price (both annual, and the above, especially considering transaction costs) is too low!

The post says: "Abot logo is just an icon from Icons8. I have to pay $19.90/month for a license." _That_ begins to approach professional-level pricing.

<comment><USER4> Not to pick on the app but with a product at such a low price, this sounds like the ideal way to bleed out a ridiculous amount of money.

Three months of that is already more money out than 2 new subscriptions bring in.

<comment><USER5> He says in the post that he was already using that icon service for other side projects though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm glad the author acknowledges there are abuse risks to anonymous communication.

<comment><USER7> One thing that the bot is missing (just my opinion, obviously) is a pseudonymous identifier. I realize this technically does not make it anonymous anymore, but I don't think it matters.

For example, if you post anonymous feedback saying "the toilets should be cleaned more regularly" and you then post an anonymous comment to that post saying "I agree", there's no way of knowing if consensus is building or if someone is astroturfing the discussion.

Compare this to if the feedback is posted by anonymous#f46d and the reply is posted by anonymous#6c7e, at least you know it's different people making the posts.

<comment><USER8> Or just only highlight whether the response is from the creator, that way you can't correlate between threads.

<comment><USER7> That still doesn't help you identify if a second person is impersonating others.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Great writeup. And, if the author is here, congrats on profitability!

As a tip for other aspiring bot developers, though.

I've been writing a lot of bots lately and I've been convinced that for Slack bots Serverless really is the way to go. Pay for what you use, no infrastructure to run, and mostly seamless scaling.

I know the infrastructure is already lean based on this article but with AWS Lambda and DynamoDB each user would be pennies a month.[1] Profitability would only require about 1 user.

Ultimately, though, the most important thing is to launch and if RoR gets you their fastest or offers some features that are critical to your app and can't be done in serverless then that is what you should do.

[1] When you consider the DynamoDB free tier. Which I'd venture you can get to a huge number of users before exhausting your free tier with a chat bot.

</comment><comment><USER10> Great idea but weird examples given.

> I know you've been stealing my sandwiches.

Doesn't this kind-of defeats the purpose? It's pretty clear who is who in this scenario.

<comment><USER11> Even the initial example of anonymous feedback about meetings was strange to me. If a large meeting is worthless/long/whatever, I'll tell my VP directly in person.

Do other people really trust their coworkers so little that they feel the need to submit any criticism anonymously? That doesn't sound like a healthy work environment.

<comment><USER12> I agree its not healthy, but the author might be in a culture different from yours where such issues are hard to raise directly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> martin-adams Interesting project. The only thing that really came to mind is since the messages are deleted on their server, could someone use it as a way to harass to a colleague leaving the company unable to take any action because it would be 100% anonymous.

</comment><comment><USER13> You can maybe save the 9$/month by replacing PostgreSQL with a more generous cloud database. Maybe Cloudant ([https://www.ibm.com/cloud/cloudant/pricing](https://www.ibm.com/cloud/cloudant/pricing)) or Firestore ([https://firebase.google.com/pricing/](https://firebase.google.com/pricing/)).

You should also check out the lambda services of google/azure/aws/webtask.io, maybe they are cheaper for your usage than the $7/month you are paying Heroku for the dyno.

</comment><comment><USER14> I was surprised by the one time purchase model. When I see that many other bots are charging by user per month.

What are you thoughs on the by user/month model ? Example 1$ per active user per month vs fixed amount per month ?

</comment><comment><USER15> Seems like this could lead to a lot of trolling, harassment, and false flags. As humorous as I find the guy fawkes avatar I would pass on this for my own workplace.

</comment><comment><USER16> Hi, thanks for sharing your journey. You might wanna share this on www.indiehacker.com, more people will be inspired :)

</comment><comment><USER17> Excellently simple and well executed idea! I also plan to go global with some tiny for fun&profit side-projects. I agree, it is not easy job with our EU VAT MESS laws so I look for some all-in-one solution too. I wonder if you had a chance to compare Paddle with FastSpring in any way?

<comment><AUTHOR> Never heard about fast spring before. I give more info about paddle in the blog comments, check them you if you're interested.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> "Rails" is in the title, but there isn't really anything in the article about what the advantages of using Rails for a Slack bot are. What have been people's experience using Rails for this kind of app?

<comment><USER19> Not done a slackbot (yet?), only a few small app and a large 7-yr-project, but with Rails it's really about whether or not you love Ruby. There's still Sinatra but that's about it in regards to web-frameworks. Rails is perfect for punching out a prototype quick and heroku (which started as an online Rails- editor) make delivery very easy.

Try ruby and see if you like the language.

<comment><USER20> Hanami is growing in popularity and Roda is a rock-solid and faster alternative to Sinatra.

Both worth considering.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Very interesting article and it gives me hope that creating a couple of decent APIs or bots can return a reasonable passive income that could make it easier to switch jobs in the future or enjoy an extra vacation a year.

</comment><comment><USER22> Interested to know why paddle rather than something like Stripe?

<comment><AUTHOR> I give more details in blog comments, check them out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> This bot is a great idea. Kudos to you!</comment>


Zendesk S-1 filing - <AUTHOR> http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1463172/000119312514137878/d665368ds1.htm <comment><USER3> Those large enterprise customers are expensive to acquire. Zendesk spent 37M on sales and marketing, with 9M going towards commissions. As they push into the enterprise more, the cost of sales went up. They increased their sales and marketing expenditures by 65%.

Contrast this with Atlassian, which has offices here in Vietnam and the Philippines - which keeps engineering costs down - and who doesn't have an expensive sales force.

Ripe for disruption: changing the way companies sell to enterprises - <USER2> changing the way enterprises buy products. Possible?

<comment><USER4> I've been studying Atlassian for some time and I really admire their approach to enterprise and this is why I think they have been successful so far:

The majority of their tools can be installed on site. SAAS for enterprise is a lot harder to sell.

Most of their tools are built with Java so things are self-contained which makes it easier to install. Also their installations will most likely not need root access. Anybody who knows enterprise knows root access is usually clamped down in enterprise.

Their pricing model encourages a bottom up sales approach. Traditional sales channel for enterprise is top down where you go after execs, senior management, etc. and work your way down. IBM, Microsoft, Oracle, etc. can afford the top down approach. For most startups, this would be impossible. By making it very affordable for disgruntled employees/departments to use their product, they are able to create internal advocates for their product if it does make their life easier.

tldr; Don't make SAAS. Try to make your tool installable with non-root/admin access. Make it very affordable for individuals and small teams because they will become internal advocates if your product is good.

<comment><USER5> While I do think being installable on site helps, I don't think that is the primary advantage Atlassian has over other software companies.

In my opinion it has everything to do with the market. They build products for a market which likes good tools, has no problem putting them into their workflow, and telling all their peers about how awesome their tools are.

Contrast that to Zendesk which is largely a customer service tool. In a large company, customer service is largely run business majors who are more concerned with risk of process changes, than they are with (potential) cost savings from better software.

<comment><USER6> Nahh, there are PLENTY of enterprise customers who will never move to the cloud with sensitive data. So software installation at the customers site is a must for many of them, especially the larger enterprises. Sure, the small web startup of 10 people doesn't care where their employees data is, a 100k employee enterprise very well does.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> \- Acquired Zopim in March 2014

Revenue - 2011: 15.6M, 2012: 38.2M, 2013: 72M

Losses - 2012: 24.4M, 2013: 22.6M

Seems like going IPO with losses is the new trend

<comment><USER8> Please find me a time when it was common to IPO with profits. Here's a hint: you won't find such a thing.

IPOs are fundraising events. High growth companies are almost by definition losing money. The idea is to raise money in order to fund expansion. Companies don't even attempt to be profitable during this phase.

<comment><USER9> Microsoft? Intel? Google? I think there are a lot of examples.

<comment><USER8> PayPal, Ebay, Yahoo, Facebook, Amazon, Priceline, Salesforce, Twitter, Yelp, etc. What's your point?

<comment><USER9> _Please find me a time when it was common to IPO with profits?_

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> If I read this right, they lose money...every year.

Is this discouraging to anyone looking to start a SaaS-based startup?

You imagine that your new service will make money, but in reality sales and marketing will cause you to have to chase funding constantly just to stay alive.

Thoughts?

<comment><USER11> We just did the annual summit at [http://www.thesmallbusinessweb.com](http://www.thesmallbusinessweb.com) and I looked at the industry landscape with Bjoern Hermann of Startup Compass.

[http://blog.startupcompass.co/2014-saas-market- outlook](http://blog.startupcompass.co/2014-saas-market-outlook)

Basically my assessment is that we are blowing out brains out doing enterprise sales for low ACV sales. It is hardly the promise of subscription software as a money machine.

The problem is that there is not very well organized distribution channels so we all have to spend huge sums on acquisition.

Compare Zendesk's total account book size (40,000) to Intuit Quickbooks (5 million they have claimed).

That's what I would like to help fix with the SBWeb, our trade association. Tough problem though. Lots of things have to change first.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I was expecting an acquisition of Zendesk by Salesforce more so then an IPO.

<comment><USER13> SalesForce already acquired Desk.com and Service Cloud which are both direct competitors of ZenDesk.

<comment><USER8> Yep, Salesforce bought its way into the mark with the Desk.com (FKA Assistly) acquisition at the ridiculously low price of around $50m. It looks like Zendesk is going to start trading north of $1b. Talk about inequality!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> founder mikkel svane owns 7%, founder alexander aghassipour another 7%, no numbers on 3rd cofounder

peter fenton (individual VC partner) owns 20%

devdutt yellurkar (individual VC partner) owns 25%

dana stalder (individual VC partner) owns 9%

and the actual VC firms basically own the rest of it.

<comment><USER15> If you are suggesting peter Fenton & not benchmark owns the shares - that's probably not correct.

Footnotes in page 120 imply that are representing the VC firms holdings

<comment><USER14> my main point was that venture capitalists own the vast majority of the company, and the founders own a comparatively small fraction.

i think we should be moving away from this model.

zendesk isn't even profitable.

<comment><USER8> I don't know why I continue to be amazed at how pathetic the analysis of things like IPOs and venture investing is here on HN.

OK, I'll bite...what sort of model would you propose?

<comment><USER14> the one where companies make money.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Anyone know how these guys compare to Freshdesk ?</comment>