Bob was a great guy though and a sterling example of a leader who really cared about his product and his customers.
Even if you're a steely-eyed capitalist, you have to admit that these were wildly successful long-term investments in developing loyal lifelong customer base.
The only difference is that the time horizon on those investments are much longer than your typical VC or PE firm cares for.
By the way, this is why VCs love software startups, and drive so hard for an IPO exit.
https://www.bizbuysell.com/learning-center/industry-valuatio...
These contribute to valuation.
Revenue and company value are completely disconnected.
Wow, shame on Bob :eyeroll:
Sounds like a parody but you should make it clear to avoid downvotes.
You know, philosophically speaking, not every company has to do that. And before someone steps in and quotes 'fiduciary responsibility for shareholder returns', I'm a VC and I run a VC fund so I'm acutely aware.
Now, if you take venture funding then that's a different story. But there are countless businesses - from small mom+pop to larger ones like Bob's Red Mills - which are operating for higher purposes than just shareholder returns. See B Corps generally. And the world is better place for it. I tuck into a bowl of Bob's oatmeal every morning and I'll be fucked if I'm buying Great Mills or PepsiCo (Quaker Oats) big company shit.
"he committed the cardinal sin of making the employees owners instead of fully capturing the excess capital of his means of production and offshoring production entirely to focus on branding"
Many would say this was anything but a cardinal sin. Try reading fewer Ayn Rand books.
in ops's defense, he's specifically stating that his statement is from a neoliberal classical view. which would be entirely accurate. It not necessarily HIS personal opinion.
But my point is, why would I do that? In both of these examples I can only assume one writes out an opinion because it's close to the one they hold themselves. I don't go around advocating opinions I don't actually hold myself.
with all due respect, being able to take a assertion or make a reasoned argument within the context of a logical framework outside your personal beliefs is a prerequisite to be a judge or lawyer or engineer.
beyond mere "devils argument", it is valuable to be able to evaluate an idea in its context. one could argue for all sorts of things from the context of Mein Kampf and not personally believe it. it could be used a rhetorical device for framing a narrative in a way that lets others view it objectively.
Add analyzing the incentives and actions of 3rd parties generally. An important skill all-around.
the difference is that you use it knowingly as a threat, and have seemingly decided that anything you deem threatening must have been done on purpose to hurt you.
Simple. You wouldn't read a statement from Mein Kampf, because no one in their right mind except for some neo-Nazis believes that trash. However, if you lived in a society full of and run by neo-Nazis, then yes, it would be entirely relevant to read a statement from that book even if you don't personally believe it.
In our case, our society really is full of and run by neoliberal classical believers, so it makes perfect sense to state that point of view, and then counter at the end. And it's not just modern society; I'd say that HN, in particular, has even more believers in that kind of philosophy than mainstream society (where it's mainly the people at the top who believe and practice it).
I think the implicit suggestion which you seem to have missed, in referring to valuing humans above profits as "the cardinal sin", is that it's only a sin from within this framework, which is usually at odds with the opposing framework which values human welfare above company health.
Perhaps my own bias is showing, but this specific application of irony (making light of the harms of capitalism by singing its praises while using highly sensationalized rhetoric) is something I do as well.
Value is subjective. Bob valued employee ownership. He realized profits within his own value framework. Nothing here violates the principles of private property or voluntary association. If anything, Bob's success is a testament to the validity of the core libertarian premises.
Perhaps careful reading of opposing viewpoints is the solution here?
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
Where the organization of labor and ownership are concerned, there may very well exist various legitimate ways to do so, conditioned by circumstance and constrained by basic objective moral principles (like justice). The value such arrangements provide to various parties may differ.
> Value is not subjective. It is objective.
I'm having trouble reconciling these two statements. The value of a strawberry not being "accessible" may as well not be there for that person who is allergic to strawberries, and in that way it is subjective. One person may prefer to drink beer over wine and another vice versa; it would be strange to claim that beer and wine are objectively equally valuable to both of those people.
This sentence doesn't read as a defense of YC or "modern neoliberalist definition" but as a criticism of it.
Ayn Rand is turning in her grave
There are many quality-of-life metrics we could choose too. For example, if you value going out on the town, the decline of so-called "third places" may be a major drop in quality of life, and if you value watching TV, the proliferation of streaming services could be the best thing that's ever happened
For example, I would rather live in a country where every adult can afford 1000 sqft than one where just Jeff Bezos can afford 300000000000000000 sqft and no one else can afford any (neither of these are the current world, obviously), but the latter does better on mean square-footage affordance
Of course, the mean does ignore equality and variance - but while it's hard for me to find good statistics on that (perhaps census data has that analysis?), I'm quite convinced that if we'd look at the metrics of "mean square foot per capita for the x-th income quintile", we would also see that it has significantly increased since 1970s for the lowest income groups as well.
I oft think about what my ancestors lived in when they arrived on these shores in the first quarter of the 16th century. I don't think they were unhappy. The house I grew up in, when we moved in, had gas lighting, a coal fired furnace, cooking stove and huge (to me) a coal fired round tub of some 48" for washing clothes. The five of us children washed dishes and removed the ash from the furnace, stove and wash tub. The house had a 48" thick stone foundation tapering to 18" at the second floor. In subsequent years, owners have made some nice changes. But kept the original design of the house.