Comment by seiji | Hacker News Reader

Comment by seiji | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

That's actually a really really good point.

I've often wondered why Things Needing Money (cities with budget deficits, states with budget deficits, caltrain, etc) don't develop startup-like things they can sell.

From one point of view, the answer is obvious: nobody wants to make someone else rich when they can make themselves rich [1]. But, from the other point of view: people do that all day every day. The majority of people don't understand (and don't want to understand) the complexities of corporate ownership, acquisitions, and payouts. They just want enough to pay for housing, food, support their family, and buy some toys a few times a year.

Could those Things Needing Money work it out by advancing internal EIR positions with enough funding to hire subordinates as necessary?

[1]: The valley does provide a way around "constantly working to make someone else rich." At large places (Cisco in the old days, Google now, probably Facebook too) you see people work the system. They can leave their company, start a startup of basically what they were working on at Big Corp, then have Big Corp aciqhire them back for a few million dollars. Or, they make a startup, get acquired by a Big Corp, vest their buyout, then immediately leave and re-create their original startup they sold, but better (maybe more sustainable or more IPO-like the second time around, but it's the exact same thing as the first time around).

Government organizations tend to focus on treating all of their employees "fairly" or "equally". That typically manifests itself in some odd outcomes. Among them is very little individual accountability. Some amount of consideration is typically given to "years in service" when handing out promotions or salary increases. Very few people are ever fired and the few that are typically have to commit an egregious fraud like not showing up for work and claiming they did. Showing up and doing nothing or near nothing will keep you happily employed with regular salary increases. If there is a down economy and they need to cut jobs they do it on a strict seniority basis, most recently hired, out first. The net effect is that over time the only people that leave are the ones good enough to get a better job where their above average ability will get them a higher salary. What you end up with is a large organization of average to totally incompetent mid-career to older workers and a segment of newly hired workers, typically younger, with a wide range of abilities.

If it is even legal for a government organization to make something to turn a profit, in many cases it isn't, the chances that an organization run like that would produce even the stupidest of successful money making apps is unlikely. On the off chance that they did succeed the cry from private industry would be so incredulous it wouldn't last long.

I have done consulting for the fed and what you describe is exactly accurate. It also describes the situation in many huge corporations, since as corporation size approaches infinity its internal political reality approaches government.

It'd be a good place to get a job if you wanted to cool your heels for a bit, but long-term I think I'd get really cynical and depressed. The thing that really hurts is that people who do go above and beyond don't get more than a token reward, and usually don't end up making more than the paycheck-suckers. Like you said it's all seniority. You'll see one or a handful of people busting their butts and doing really good work, and dozens or hundreds of people coasting, and the former are not given raises.

"Pure" meritocracy is a pipe dream. It's an idea that sounds good in rhetoric but is near-impossible to even define, let alone achieve, in reality. In the real world attempts at pure meritocracy often devolve into stress-inducing 80s Wall St. films. But absolutely flat anti-meritocracy sucks worse. The optimum is probably somewhere... hmm... maybe 2/3 of the way to an attempt at pure meritocracy? Enough incentive and accountability to motivate and reward, but enough flex and forgiveness to not burn people out.

You make "develop[ing] startup-like things they can sell" sound like it's easy, or at least deterministic.

Without even considering the impact of luck, there can be no doubt that building "startup-like things" takes enormous effort and dedication - and those can only rarely exist as secondary concerns in another organisation.

Agreed.

Meta: I like your style of writing! Do you have a blog that I can follow?

Thanks!

Thanks so much. I'm getting a new site up soon to write some articles and musings. If all goes well, it'll be inescapable around here.

The moment you begin building teams to sell.. you become Ycombinator. I think it's clear that's a full time business, not something you do to generate cash.

Because many would see it as government meddling with private industry and go completely nuts over it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com