Hacker News Reader

Comment by madamelic | Hacker News Reader

More and more I agree with the sentiment of "Let's change the world" being pure BS.

Why grow infinitely until you fail when you could just get really, really good at a few things for a long time (Oh that's right. VCs and their desire for unsatiable "growth").

I'd much rather work for a company that focuses on one or two core competencies than one that tries to everything ok.

View on HN

Can you blame people? Who doesn't want to be the next Bill Gates or Elon Musk?

The recipe is to grow exponentially and dominate the market, then to do fun world-changing ventures.

>Who doesn't want to be the next Bill Gates or Elon Musk?

Microsoft made killer software and that was basically it for the first like 15 years of their company. If a company can last 15 years and be a behemoth, by all means, start venturing for new green fields... but WeWork becoming an owner of a Kindergarten... what?

Elon Musk is a person, not a company. And all of his companies tie into a core vision (Advance humanity).

WeWork is just starting a school because it... uh... involves a building? I can excuse WeLive because hey, that's a great idea and actually dovetails with WeWork nicely.

I would love for a space that allowed me to work while providing daycare nearby for my kid. But I’m very niche, for sure.

Unlike Gates and Musk, WeWork is inextricably dependent on the VC industry, which provides the money that unprofitable companies pay WeWork in rent.

That's not the picture I got from the WeWork spaces in Berlin. A significant portion of the companies there (probably enough for break-even) are profitable. Small floating offices from big tech companies, consulting firms, or startups in profitable niches.

But not everyone is capable of being Elon Musk, or should even want to be like him, if they really understood what it takes to be him. Here is one of the most insightful posts I have ever read on the subject, coming from someone who should know -- his first wife:

https://www.quora.com/How-can-I-be-as-great-as-Bill-Gates-St...

It's the Shareholder Directive that you want destroyed. Executives in this country have no choice but to maximize value for shareholders. We need to destroy that rule and its surrounding culture if you want to get rid of insatiable growth

Stopping optimization, evolution, growth?

Go outside and yell out, "Hey world, I'm good! You can stop evolving now, thanks!"

Growth for the sake of growth is how cancer kills you.

Evolution is a good analogy, since you are making the same mistake regarding both evolution and optimization/growth.

These things don't have an inherent direction, they are aimed in a direction. The point being made here is about the direction they are being aimed, not stopping them.

I don't think anyone's advocating that, they're advocating sustainability (not static-ness(?) I'm sure there's a much better word here) over endless growth, there's a pretty distinct difference.

Look up B Corporations. There is another way. However most founders really want to be rich and few VCs will invest in this structure.

I’m always surprised to see that myth trotted out here!

https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/06/26/the-shareholder-v...

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-co...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/harold-meyerson-the-...

https://www.marketplace.org/2016/06/09/economy/price-profits...

https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?refe...

Maximizing shareholder value is a canard, not a law, not to mention that fiduciary duty cases against C-levels are so rare as to be irrelevant.

There is a choice.

The board can always fire the C-level, so by virtue of survivor bias alone the ones left are looking out for shareholder interests first. There is a choice: be CEO or not.

The board can always fire the C-level

Do they, though? And for this reason?

Again, you don't ever hear about the candidates who were fired quickly (or in less prestigious positions) or never hired in the first place because...survival bias.

"Fired quickly" for violating fiduciary duty? Less-prestigious people don't have fiduciary duties to stockholders. I think you might be making a category error.

They can and they will. Watched it happen twice at once company; they ended up turning over nearly all senior management about a year or two behind them.

Keep in mind that a Fiduciary Duty of Care violation is a civil tort, not just a reason to fire someone. If they haven't been sued by the company, it's not what I'm talking about.

I've heard this but AFAIK they simply terminated their employment

Reply on news.ycombinator.com