Sorry, but there's truth in patio11's statement that, as a developer, "You’re in the business of unemploying people. If you think that is unfair, go back to school and study something that doesn’t matter." [1]
Doing things that matter, changing people's lives, that SHOULD change what jobs people do.
There is truth to it, but that was not the argument put forward in the post.
My post is about using that as a marketing angle for your startup - which I find distasteful. There's so many other, more positive things, you can use as your marketing message.
One of the goals of marketing is to attract attention (more specifically, to create demand). Bold statements like these get attention -- the mere fact that you dedicate a whole blog post to it means it worked.
Oh I'm absolutely sure it attracted attention, that was never under dispute.
My post is simply saying that I find it distasteful. Its efficacy as a means to get clicks is quite obvious.
There is an ethical line however, otherwise we'd all be advertising our startups with naked Abercrombie & Fitch models. And that line (call it comfort level) is going to sit differently with different people.
Perhaps it's my relatively conservative British upbringing, but this type of stuff just doesn't sit well with me!
>Is destroying jobs an appropriate driving force for a young company? I think the answer is no.
I think the answer is yes. Making human effort unnecessary is a good measure of value having been added to the world, because that human effort is now free to do something else.
Pity the stagecoach drivers, but don't let it stop you from celebrating the automobiles.
Really? There are a lot of jobs that could be automated. If you are writing software with the goal of improving current processes, sometimes you can get a better result by looking at WHY the process exists, and if it could be replaced entirely.
An example: Self driving cars will eventually put Taxi Drivers out of jobs. Does that mean a Start-up that wants to be in this industry is evil? I don't think so.
The point I'm trying to make is that there is a difference between your mission and the mission's unintended outcome.
As an engineer, I don't believe my mission is to put people out of jobs. In response to some of your points:
Yes, self-driving cars will put people out of jobs. But is that the mission of Google? No, their mission is to make people's lives easier / better.
Yes, electric cars will put gas-pump attendants out of jobs. Is that the mission of Tesla? No, their mission is to make people's lives better through sustainable transport and removing our dependence on fossil fuels.
I think it's important to focus on the value-add portion of what we do, and especially not treat the negative fallout (people losing their jobs) as some kind of marketing angle.
What we find distasteful is inherently subjective after all. Designing ads is a tricky one (and really, I have never had much of a result from this type of paid advertising so I don't do any) and I recognize the need to maximise CTR where ad budget is concerned.
But in the same way that Godaddy uses buxom female models to promote their products (which works well for them) and some people find that distasteful, I find this distasteful.
> But in the same way that Godaddy uses buxom female models to promote their products (which works well for them) and some people find that distasteful, I find this distasteful.
Bingo. I find it odd how many people here either seem to be missing your point entirely, or are just trying to be contrarian and '1-up' you by being saying it's effective' (virtually implying that it's therefore 'ethical'), when that wasn't even what you were arguing against to begin with.
If this were a post calling out godaddy about their usage of women (as per your analogy), then most comments here would probably be agreeing with you, but since it's something more 'controversial' and closer to what we as developers do for a living, then suddenly your actual point isn't as important anymore... I don't want to attribute it to a lack of 'self-awareness', but it is a bizarre phenomenon.
Whenever it's convenient, HN will always reliably argue against the use of 'morality' in arguments, because it's just so 'subjective', that it's not even worth bringing it up at all (which is just lazy critical thinking IMO, but oh well).
I don't think there's a difference. Whether it is your goal or not, the outcome is the same. "Reducing overhead", "improving processes", "automated-anything" are just other ways to saying redundancy (or ideally, retrenchment).
Despite all that, if social media is a big part of your business, no amount of software is going to replace the expert who knows how to maintain a brand-voice, can do content-writing, customer correspondence, document and track trends, etc.
Saying "fire your social media manager" is probably just bad advice if anything.
Distasteful? Maybe. Ineffective? Quite probably (considering the decision makers who are buying a Social Media tool are often Social Media Managers). However, if you're going to be as uncomfortable with software eliminating certain job categories and putting people out of work as the OP claims they are, you probably shouldn't be working in technology.
Salesforce (a company specifically mentioned by OP) certainly didn't aim to put salespeople out of business. It did, however, greatly reduce the need for assistants and secretaries that used to be instrumental in keeping salespeople organized, thus eliminating many such positions. Mailchimp (another company mentioned) certainly created some new email marketing positions, but in the process it helped optimize email-use, which is itself a kind of optimization of traditional mail. Thus one could reasonably argue that Mail Chimp helps put people in the paper industry and in the Postal industry out of work.
Adding/creating value and the destruction of jobs are not mutually exclusive. Value can be created through innovation that results in job destruction. Furthermore, a product or service that eliminates one job can easily be responsible for creating one or more new jobs.
The author's Salesforce example is particularly naive. While it would probably be inaccurate to claim that Salesforce alone slayed Siebel[1], the reality is that Salesforce did upend the CRM market. In doing so, Salesforce created significant value, but at the expense of established CRM software providers and many of the integrators that relied on the demand for their products.
What about something like self-driving vehicles? In particular, Semi Trucks. That's a technology I look forward to, but it will destroy jobs. Self driving trucks don't enhance the ability of the driver, it replaces the driver. Self driving trucks can do 36 hours of driving in 36 hours. A human driver will take 3 days. Your whole truck fleet is idle at night, and you need huge cabs to accommodate basic living needs of humans. Etc.
I honestly hope someone is trying to make this happen, even though it'll completely kill millions of jobs. Hopefully the drivers can find new skills. The economy certainly wouldn't mind an extra 1 million programmers.
Destroying jobs with technology is one of the primary ways we've improved productivity over the past half century. I understand not everyone thinks that's a net positive, but if you're one of those people then you shouldn't try to create productivity software.
At the macro unless your name is Oracle your productivity software will reduce the number of people needed to accomplish a task. Assuming your software works of course. Patio11's main product is to replace secretaries, while improving customer retention.
I'd be very curious to know who actually is the end-user of patio11's software. Is it really the business owner? Or is it the salon/dentist receptionist.
Because if it's the latter, then nobody lost their job - he just enabled that person to do their job better.
The reason I ask is because I started my startup http://beatrixapp.com thinking the same thing - that the end-user would be the business owner.
It turns out that only in a small number of cases is that actually true.
The main segment is still social media managers, my software makes their life easier, it doesn't replace their entire job spec and I don't think it ever will.
One example is that you need a rare expert to do something and there are no extra unemployed experts available to you, but you have more work.
If you make the ones you have more productive, you don't reduce employment.
It is also true if there is a large fixed cost per employed person. For example, a very expensive machine.
So, you have work for another person, but can't afford the extra machine. Making the people you have more productive also does not reduce employment. It could increase employment if profit per person makes the machine more affordable, and then you can hire someone.
Doing things that matter, changing people's lives, that SHOULD change what jobs people do.
[1] http://www.kalzumeus.com/2011/10/28/dont-call-yourself-a-pro...