Hacker News Reader

Comment by mwseibel | Hacker News Reader

Hey folks - happy to answer questions about our new RFS.

I have an idea for a non-profit that tackles a systemic problem, but the companies you've listed seem hopelessly out of touch with the problems they're trying to tackle.

Promise is mentioned as "tackling mass incarceration", but their company seems geared more towards improving efficiency in criminal justice agencies. Do they really think that an app that sends reminders is going to help failure to appear rates? Crime, recidivism, failure to appear etc are deeply rooted in poverty and hopelessness.

How does a reminders app fight any of those problems? People fail to show up to court because they don't see the point, because they think the system is stacked against them, because they can't afford to take the time off of work, because they can't find child care, or because they don't have transportation. It's ridiculous to suggest that an app that sends reminders of court dates will make an impact on any of these problems. Have you encouraged the people in Promise to talk to experts in this area?

Or is your approach with all of these systemic problems to just make some apps that crunch data and send reminders?

It really does not make me want to apply, given that you are listing a company like this as one of your bright, shining Government 2.0 examples. Not that I would trust a bunch of VC's to tackle income inequality anyway, but it's almost funny how terrible these companies are about missing the mark.

This is spot on and shows how much Silicon Valley is out of touch with the reality on the ground and dismissive of non-profits and government agencies that handle these sort of things.

> Do they really think that an app that sends reminders is going to help failure to appear rates?

Text reminders empirically reduce failure to appear by a huge amount[1]. Maybe you don’t understand the problem as well as you think?

[1] https://www.povertyactionlab.org/evaluation/text-message-rem...

Why the focus on only profit making for-profit companies when the bulk of what you mentioned is currently being serviced by non-profits?

When non-profits succeed they have to ask for more money. When for-profits succeed, they fund themselves. So it's far better for a for-profit to solve a given problem than a non-profit, as they are inherently more scalable.

>When non-profits succeed they have to ask for more money.

That's not true at all. I worked for 3 years on a non-profit that funded itself and it received external donations and investments. This is not "either self-funding or external-funding". The whole idea of a nonprofit is that instead of sharing the surplus of revenues between shareholders, leaders or members, it will invest the surplus further into the company development and projects. It has nothing to do with scalability.

I think it's more about aligning incentives with investors. Money put into a non-profit is a full write-off and so can really only have altruistic motivations. For-profit allows for investments that are motivated by a mixture of altruism and self-interest, which (for better or worse) allows for a much larger supply of capital.

> When non-profits succeed they have to ask for more money. When for-profits succeed, they fund themselves.

Having managed a non-profit and having worked at a very successful one before, this just makes you sound so out-of-touch it's not even funny.

Yes, some non-profits are driven by donations, but many are not.

> So it's far better for a for-profit to solve a given problem than a non-profit, as they are inherently more scalable.

If by, "more scalable," you mean, "less accountable," then you're correct.

Why'd you name it Government 2.0, if you "do not seek to replace the government and its policymakers but seek to fund startups that create solutions that provide Americans the foundations for economic growth?"

Did you consider any other less misleading/terrifying names?

YC didn't invent this term.

Good point. :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com