Phil Calvert's "The Cult of the Entrepreneur" critiques the modern obsession with entrepreneurship and startup culture. He argues that this "cult" promotes a relentless pursuit of work and productivity, often at the expense of personal well-being and wider social good. Calvert challenges the romanticized image of the entrepreneur, highlighting the precarious and exploitative nature of many ventures while questioning the underlying assumption that constant innovation and disruption are inherently positive. He advocates for a reevaluation of our relationship with work, urging a shift towards valuing stability, community, and meaningful labor over the pursuit of ever-increasing profits and growth.
Inherited wealth is increasingly rivaling earned income in importance, especially in advanced economies. As populations age and accumulated wealth grows, inheritances are becoming larger and more frequent, flowing disproportionately to the already wealthy. This exacerbates inequality, entrenches existing class structures, and potentially undermines the meritocratic ideal of social mobility based on hard work. The article argues that governments need to address this trend through policies like inheritance taxes, not just to raise revenue, but to promote fairness and opportunity across generations.
HN commenters largely agree with the premise that inherited wealth is increasingly important for financial success. Several highlight the difficulty of accumulating wealth through work alone, especially given rising housing costs and stagnant wages. Some discuss the societal implications, expressing concern over decreased social mobility and the potential for inherited wealth to exacerbate inequality. Others offer personal anecdotes illustrating the impact of inheritance, both positive and negative. The role of luck and privilege is a recurring theme, with some arguing that meritocracy is a myth and that inherited advantages play a larger role than often acknowledged. A few commenters point out potential flaws in the Economist's analysis, questioning the data or suggesting alternative interpretations.
The blog post "Money lessons without money: The financial literacy fallacy" argues that financial literacy education is largely ineffective because it fails to address the fundamental problem of insufficient income. Teaching budgeting and saving skills to people who barely have enough to cover basic needs is pointless. The post contends that focusing on systemic issues like wealth inequality and advocating for policies that increase wages and social safety nets would be far more impactful in improving people's financial well-being than traditional financial literacy programs. It uses the analogy of teaching dieting to starving people – the issue isn't lack of knowledge about nutrition, but lack of access to food.
HN users largely agreed with the article's premise that financial literacy education is ineffective without practical application and access to financial resources. Several commenters shared personal anecdotes reinforcing this point, describing how abstract financial concepts became meaningful only after encountering real-world financial situations. Some argued that focusing on systemic issues like predatory lending and wealth inequality would be more impactful than financial literacy programs. A few dissenting voices suggested that basic financial knowledge is still valuable, particularly for young people, and can help avoid costly mistakes. The discussion also touched on the importance of teaching critical thinking skills alongside financial concepts, enabling individuals to navigate complex financial products and marketing.
In a 2014 Dezeen article, Justin McGuirk reflects on William Gibson's observation that burgeoning subcultures are rapidly commodified, losing their subversive potential before they fully form. McGuirk uses the example of a sanitized, commercialized "punk" aesthetic appearing in London shops, devoid of the original movement's anti-establishment ethos. He argues that the internet, with its instant communication and trend-spotting, accelerates this process. Essentially, the very act of identifying and labeling a subculture makes it vulnerable to appropriation by mainstream culture, transforming rebellion into a marketable product.
HN users generally agree with Gibson's observation about the rapid commodification of subcultures. Several commenters attribute this to the internet and social media, allowing trends to spread and be exploited much faster than in the past. Some argue that genuine subcultures still exist, but are more fragmented and harder to find. One commenter suggests commodification might not always be negative, as it can provide access to niche interests while another points out the cyclical nature of trends, with mainstream adoption often leading to subcultures moving underground and reinventing themselves. A few lament the loss of authenticity this process creates.
Scott Galloway's "Addiction Economy" argues that major tech platforms, like Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube, are deliberately engineered to be addictive. They exploit human vulnerabilities, using persuasive design and algorithms optimized for engagement, not well-being. This "attention arbitrage" model prioritizes maximizing user time and data collection, which are then monetized through targeted advertising. Galloway compares these platforms to cigarettes, highlighting their negative impact on mental health, productivity, and societal discourse, while also acknowledging their utility and the difficulty of regulation. He concludes that these companies have become too powerful and calls for greater awareness, stricter regulations, and individual responsibility in managing our relationship with these addictive technologies.
HN commenters largely agree with Galloway's premise that many tech companies intentionally engineer their products to be addictive. Several point out the manipulative nature of infinite scroll and notification systems, designed to keep users engaged even against their better interests. Some users offer personal anecdotes of struggling with these addictive qualities, while others discuss the ethical implications for designers and the broader societal impact. A few commenters suggest potential solutions, including stricter regulations and encouraging digital minimalism. Some disagreement exists on whether the responsibility lies solely with the companies or also with the users' lack of self-control. A compelling comment thread explores the parallels between social media addiction and gambling addiction, referencing similar psychological mechanisms and profit motives. Another interesting discussion revolves around the difficulty in defining "addiction" in this context and whether the term is being overused.
The blog post "Is Atlas Shrugged the New Vibe?" explores the apparent resurgence of Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism and her novel Atlas Shrugged among younger generations, particularly online. The author notes the book's themes of individualism, self-reliance, and skepticism towards government intervention are resonating with some who feel disillusioned with current societal structures and economic systems. However, the post questions whether this renewed interest stems from a genuine understanding of Rand's complex philosophy or a superficial embrace of its "anti-establishment" aesthetic, driven by social media trends. Ultimately, it suggests the novel's resurgence is more a reflection of contemporary anxieties than a deep ideological shift.
HN commenters largely disagree with the premise that Atlas Shrugged is having a resurgence. Several point out that its popularity has remained relatively consistent within certain libertarian-leaning circles and that the author misinterprets familiarity with its concepts (like "going Galt") with a renewed interest in the book itself. Some commenters suggest the article's author is simply encountering the book for the first time and projecting broader cultural relevance onto their personal experience. Others note the book's enduring appeal to specific demographics, like teenagers and those frustrated with perceived societal injustices, but caution against equating this with mainstream popularity. A few commenters offer alternative explanations for the perceived "vibe shift," citing increasing economic anxieties and the appeal of individualist philosophies in times of uncertainty. Finally, several commenters critique the article's writing style and shallow analysis.
Summary of Comments ( 56 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43945162
HN commenters largely agree with the article's critique of the "cult of entrepreneurship." Several point out how this mindset devalues non-entrepreneurial work, contributing to societal problems like burnout and precarity. Some highlight the irony of glorifying entrepreneurship while simultaneously criticizing "wage slavery," arguing that many entrepreneurs work far longer hours for less pay than traditional employees. Others discuss the negative environmental impacts of constant growth and consumption fueled by the entrepreneurial drive. A few commenters offer alternative perspectives, suggesting that the entrepreneurial spirit can be positive if focused on solving real problems rather than simply maximizing profit. However, the prevailing sentiment is one of skepticism towards the unchecked celebration of entrepreneurship.
The Hacker News post titled "The cult of doing business," linking to a Commonweal Magazine article about Matthew Crawford's book "Why We Work," generated a moderate number of comments, many engaging with the core ideas presented.
Several commenters resonated with the critique of the "entrepreneur ethic," expressing weariness with the constant pressure to hustle and the glorification of work as the sole source of meaning. They voiced concern over the erosion of traditional employment structures and the precariousness of gig work, lamenting the loss of stability and benefits that once came with a steady job. Some pointed out the inherent contradiction in a system that promotes entrepreneurship while simultaneously creating an environment where most new businesses fail.
One commenter highlighted the societal shift from valuing craft and mastery in a particular field to prioritizing the ability to "sell yourself" and constantly adapt to new market demands. This shift, they argued, devalues deep expertise and encourages a superficial approach to work.
Another thread discussed the psychological impact of this entrepreneurial mindset, noting the anxiety and burnout that can result from the relentless pressure to perform and the fear of failure. The constant need to network and self-promote was also criticized as draining and inauthentic.
Some commenters challenged the premise of the article, arguing that entrepreneurship can be a genuine source of fulfillment and innovation. They pointed to the benefits of autonomy, creativity, and the ability to build something from scratch. However, even these commenters acknowledged the downsides of the current system, particularly the challenges faced by small businesses competing with large corporations.
A few comments focused on the historical context of the "work ethic," tracing its roots back to Protestant theology and the Industrial Revolution. They suggested that the current obsession with work represents a distorted version of this earlier ethic, one that has lost its connection to community and purpose.
While there wasn't a single overwhelmingly compelling comment, the discussion as a whole provided a nuanced perspective on the complex relationship between work, identity, and meaning in contemporary society. The comments reflected a general unease with the prevailing entrepreneurial culture, even as some acknowledged its potential benefits.