Alexis Ohanian on Solving America’s Innovation Crisis(slate.com)
slate.com
Alexis Ohanian on Solving America’s Innovation Crisis
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/10/alexis_ohanian_reddit_co_founder_on_solving_america_s_innovation_crisis.html
14 comments
I'm tired of the narrative about how everyone over 30 can't work overtime because of their half-dozen special-needs children and their demanding spouse and their massive underwater mortgage and whatever else.
I'm over 30. I have more time to work because I'm not dating and partying and backpacking.
While trying to elicit sympathy, this narrative actually does more harm than good.
Besides, it's just not true, at least with me and my peers. We're more financially stable, harder working, honed, and more focused than we were when we were 20.
I'm over 30. I have more time to work because I'm not dating and partying and backpacking.
While trying to elicit sympathy, this narrative actually does more harm than good.
Besides, it's just not true, at least with me and my peers. We're more financially stable, harder working, honed, and more focused than we were when we were 20.
>I'm tired of the narrative about how everyone over 30 can't work overtime because of their half-dozen special-needs children and their demanding spouse and their massive underwater mortgage and whatever else.
How about those with wives and children would rather spend time with them than at work?
Is a work-life balance to be looked down upon?
Why should the endless march of capital win at all costs vs human labor?
How about those with wives and children would rather spend time with them than at work?
Is a work-life balance to be looked down upon?
Why should the endless march of capital win at all costs vs human labor?
That's great! But it's not a function of age.
I had more work/life balance in my 20s than I do now. Some people are the opposite.
But it's an individual's choice to make, not some sort of natural law as it's often presented.
I had more work/life balance in my 20s than I do now. Some people are the opposite.
But it's an individual's choice to make, not some sort of natural law as it's often presented.
I actually think it IS a function of age. For example, while you personally have more time in your 30s, it's not true for the majority. An average person in their 30s will have experienced more "life" than someone in their 20s, so the chances are higher that they will have added obligations and responsibilities.
Whether it's financial responsibilities or familial responsibilities, ignoring how life usually works out for the average person because your situation is different is a bit selfish. As much as kids in their 20s like to think they have their life planned out step by step, life has a way of throwing a wrench into those plans. I don't think its disingenuous at all to assume that people have less responsibilities in their 20s than in their 30s. A personal anecdote to the contrary doesn't really change that.
Whether it's financial responsibilities or familial responsibilities, ignoring how life usually works out for the average person because your situation is different is a bit selfish. As much as kids in their 20s like to think they have their life planned out step by step, life has a way of throwing a wrench into those plans. I don't think its disingenuous at all to assume that people have less responsibilities in their 20s than in their 30s. A personal anecdote to the contrary doesn't really change that.
Like material wealth, relationships and commitments generally increase over time.
I find I had more social relationships in my early 20s before I had a long term girlfriend and we moved to a new area. It's only through conscious effort that we maintain friendships with a few other couples. It would be easy to be lazy and just spend time with my partner.
As people have kids perhaps they create new relationships with other couples with kids but they often grow apart from those that don't.
Work commitments have varied through the years depending more on the company culture.
As people have kids perhaps they create new relationships with other couples with kids but they often grow apart from those that don't.
Work commitments have varied through the years depending more on the company culture.
I'm pretty certain work/life balance is codified in law, such as, "You pay me X, you get 40 hours a week of my time."
I wish that was codified in to law. As exempt workers most tech workers don't get that kind of legal protection.
I wasn't trying to say that people over 30 can't work overtime, I'm saying that their lives are less tolerant to consistent over working.
I tend to agree with your assertion of better stability.
I tend to agree with your assertion of better stability.
I'm about to hit 30, and I concur. Having a wife and kid has made me more disciplined and better at time management. Also, having an infant has made me more tolerant of getting less sleep...
No you had plenty of time to work in your twenties, you just choose to use it dating and partying and backpacking.
It is absolutely true that life adds its demands up - family, parents, Ill relations, children with special needs.
If you have none of these count yourself lucky.
It is absolutely true that life adds its demands up - family, parents, Ill relations, children with special needs.
If you have none of these count yourself lucky.
It's a bit confused, so let's unpack the issues. There are really two crises, and they have some overlapping solutions, but are definitely not the same thing.
First, there are innovation issues. As Tyler Cowen goes over in his books, we've already picked much or all of the low-hanging innovation fruit, and will have to work much harder (collectively and individually) to innovate. Ohanian's statements and implications about education (which I would argue is more about knowledge, practice, and spending time actually thinking about problems and solutions, rather than formal credentials) are correct. Autodidacts are likely to be at the forefront of innovation for the foreseeable future. Those willing to focus on learning and building things for themselves will reap the gains compared to those who want to just live their lives (spend time with others for fun, party, have hobbies, and all those other things people in earlier generations were promised once they "put in their dues") will struggle. While this was probably always true, we're entering a new era of hypercompetition where (in the US at least) it'll be what divides those in poverty from those with plenty (see Autor's work for more on this.) Which brings us to the second crisis:
Jobs. In the coming decades, as we continue to automate people out of jobs permanently (turning them into Zero Marginal Product workers) those left /solidly in/ the job market will be eventually able to command much higher salaries and benefits, while the ZMPs scrape by with either a) welfare if we leave things as they are, b) live a decent life off a guaranteed basic income if we're wise enough to do that, or c) starve, if we continue to do what we've been doing for 30 years. Those on the margins will be the ones dealing with the hypercompetition and will have to work harder and harder to stay above the line. So he's right again about "they instantly show who is resourceful and who isn't—who will go the extra mile and who will coast to the finish", but not for the reasons he thinks. The way we got here wasn't some grand choice by the people, it's the result of political choices: radical deregulation (mostly a bad story), the destruction of labor unions (had to happen), automation (technological unemployment as the result, unstoppable), and as a result, a changed culture of doing more with less. He uses the term "welcomes", but aside from those who enjoy meritocracy and all its upsides AND downsides, I would say most do NOT welcome it. If given the choice, most would choose to bring back some semblance the Golden Age (which I believe is impossible and should not even be considered, as the landscape has changed far too much to make that a possibility.)
So there is overlap in the two stories: hypercompetition leading to people having to work harder and harder to stay alive at the margins, and low-hanging fruit being picked requiring us to work harder to innovate. The unspoken idea that if everyone works harder we will all be able to succeed and innovate is naive; working harder to _innovate_ will be necessary but not sufficient. Working harder to _succeed financially_ will only work for /some/, and as time goes by, a smaller and smaller slice of the population.
Mr. Ohanian has romanticized a (for most) tough new reality. I believe this is unwise. We should look at it clearly and with eyes wide open so we can improve the future by putting in policies that support the innovators while keeping all the jobless and medium-term future jobless people from starving; telling people that they can succeed if they only work harder and obtain more education should be considered dangerously misguided.
First, there are innovation issues. As Tyler Cowen goes over in his books, we've already picked much or all of the low-hanging innovation fruit, and will have to work much harder (collectively and individually) to innovate. Ohanian's statements and implications about education (which I would argue is more about knowledge, practice, and spending time actually thinking about problems and solutions, rather than formal credentials) are correct. Autodidacts are likely to be at the forefront of innovation for the foreseeable future. Those willing to focus on learning and building things for themselves will reap the gains compared to those who want to just live their lives (spend time with others for fun, party, have hobbies, and all those other things people in earlier generations were promised once they "put in their dues") will struggle. While this was probably always true, we're entering a new era of hypercompetition where (in the US at least) it'll be what divides those in poverty from those with plenty (see Autor's work for more on this.) Which brings us to the second crisis:
Jobs. In the coming decades, as we continue to automate people out of jobs permanently (turning them into Zero Marginal Product workers) those left /solidly in/ the job market will be eventually able to command much higher salaries and benefits, while the ZMPs scrape by with either a) welfare if we leave things as they are, b) live a decent life off a guaranteed basic income if we're wise enough to do that, or c) starve, if we continue to do what we've been doing for 30 years. Those on the margins will be the ones dealing with the hypercompetition and will have to work harder and harder to stay above the line. So he's right again about "they instantly show who is resourceful and who isn't—who will go the extra mile and who will coast to the finish", but not for the reasons he thinks. The way we got here wasn't some grand choice by the people, it's the result of political choices: radical deregulation (mostly a bad story), the destruction of labor unions (had to happen), automation (technological unemployment as the result, unstoppable), and as a result, a changed culture of doing more with less. He uses the term "welcomes", but aside from those who enjoy meritocracy and all its upsides AND downsides, I would say most do NOT welcome it. If given the choice, most would choose to bring back some semblance the Golden Age (which I believe is impossible and should not even be considered, as the landscape has changed far too much to make that a possibility.)
So there is overlap in the two stories: hypercompetition leading to people having to work harder and harder to stay alive at the margins, and low-hanging fruit being picked requiring us to work harder to innovate. The unspoken idea that if everyone works harder we will all be able to succeed and innovate is naive; working harder to _innovate_ will be necessary but not sufficient. Working harder to _succeed financially_ will only work for /some/, and as time goes by, a smaller and smaller slice of the population.
Mr. Ohanian has romanticized a (for most) tough new reality. I believe this is unwise. We should look at it clearly and with eyes wide open so we can improve the future by putting in policies that support the innovators while keeping all the jobless and medium-term future jobless people from starving; telling people that they can succeed if they only work harder and obtain more education should be considered dangerously misguided.
Kudos. I've thought some of these ideas, but I've never strung them together in my mind such a complete manner.
Now to nit-pick:
-Is talking about "marginal" innovators as the only people with safe work really accurate? I think many jobs which rely on people interaction and soft skills will not be killed off by technological advancement.
-I think telling people to get education is absolutely a fine thing.... if we replace the word "education" with "value adding skills". There are still going to be plethora of non-innovating positions that require skills. The problem is that the majority of students go to college to learn stuff that is mentally comfortable and are sustained on student debt that might well never be paid back. Yes, historically an education has always paid back over one's lifetime earnings, but I'm not sure that will continue in the future described.
Now to nit-pick:
-Is talking about "marginal" innovators as the only people with safe work really accurate? I think many jobs which rely on people interaction and soft skills will not be killed off by technological advancement.
-I think telling people to get education is absolutely a fine thing.... if we replace the word "education" with "value adding skills". There are still going to be plethora of non-innovating positions that require skills. The problem is that the majority of students go to college to learn stuff that is mentally comfortable and are sustained on student debt that might well never be paid back. Yes, historically an education has always paid back over one's lifetime earnings, but I'm not sure that will continue in the future described.
"Companies[...]no longer look for someone to come in from 9 to 5 and uphold the status quo.[...]To baby boomers, these trends are scary, eating away at the foundation of a steady job and life that they helped instill. But we millennials welcome these new paradigms"
Woah, woah, woah! Speak for yourself man, I like steady jobs.
Woah, woah, woah! Speak for yourself man, I like steady jobs.
I'm all for steady jobs, it's just the goal is less about '9-5 work for one company.' Especially in tech, the idea of a 'workday' is so rightfully questioned or outright abolished at most workplaces. Getting things done matters more than being in a chair. And I don't think many of us expect to work for only one or two companies our entire lives.
The risk of shifting from the 9-to-5 mindset to "getting things done" is that people will end up (and some already are) working 70/80 hours a week and die young of heart attack.
The best thing about a steady job is that it takes worries out of your mind, you're not always stressing about losing your job and making ends meet. That's the most important thing that many tend to underplay.
The best thing about a steady job is that it takes worries out of your mind, you're not always stressing about losing your job and making ends meet. That's the most important thing that many tend to underplay.
>The risk of shifting from the 9-to-5 mindset to "getting things done" is that people will end up (and some already are) working 70/80 hours a week and die young of heart attack.
This is the scenario that worries me- a massive race to the bottom in order to get "ahead". Most jobs aren't that important, and don't merit that much of the employee's time. At an e-commerce place I used to work, I overheard a c-level exec tell a guy who was putting in lots of overtime, "Remember, we're not curing cancer here." I think it's great that the exec was encouraging the guy to not place too much importance on his job, but it's too bad that it was necessary in the first place.
This is the scenario that worries me- a massive race to the bottom in order to get "ahead". Most jobs aren't that important, and don't merit that much of the employee's time. At an e-commerce place I used to work, I overheard a c-level exec tell a guy who was putting in lots of overtime, "Remember, we're not curing cancer here." I think it's great that the exec was encouraging the guy to not place too much importance on his job, but it's too bad that it was necessary in the first place.
> Especially in tech, the idea of a 'workday' is so rightfully questioned or outright abolished at most workplaces. Getting things done matters more than being in a chair.
It's clearly the right approach (particularly in tech) but corporate culture is what dictates if this is accepted where you're actually working. If you work at $OLD_SLOW_COMPANY then it's less likely to be understood then at $SMART_YOUNG_CORP.
> And I don't think many of us expect to work for only one or two companies our entire lives.
Spot on. The usual advice I give is to plan on staying at a gig (as an employee, not a founder) for 2 years. Year one is for learning, year two is for shining. By the start of year three you should be either off to apply what you learned elsewhere or doing something new internally. The two year number is somewhat tied to the bonus/promotion cycle of the financial services industry but I think the general idea applies to all fields.
It's clearly the right approach (particularly in tech) but corporate culture is what dictates if this is accepted where you're actually working. If you work at $OLD_SLOW_COMPANY then it's less likely to be understood then at $SMART_YOUNG_CORP.
> And I don't think many of us expect to work for only one or two companies our entire lives.
Spot on. The usual advice I give is to plan on staying at a gig (as an employee, not a founder) for 2 years. Year one is for learning, year two is for shining. By the start of year three you should be either off to apply what you learned elsewhere or doing something new internally. The two year number is somewhat tied to the bonus/promotion cycle of the financial services industry but I think the general idea applies to all fields.
This is absurd naivety. I know so many people who were the uber-hacker robots that looked down with contempt on older guys with kids. When the robots got married and had kids, everything changed to "work-life balance" and afternoon soccer practice three times a week. I'm old enough that my kids are almost grown and gone, yet young enough to still code a lot. It's all so ironic now.
The summary is that Alex has invested in two companies that he'd like people to consider are the solution to a crisis he describes.
He also pooh-poohs a scheme by Peter Thiel which is a privately financed personal pilot project for 20 talented young adults a year by investing in their work without requiring ownership of whatever they come up with. He criticizes this plan for only applying to 20 people even though it was never meant to scale to the populace, it has always been about giving very talented young adults who are already working on something interesting an alternative to college debt. He then as a counter example points to a system with literally millions of students as input which has produced a student in Mongolia who was accepted to MIT, the same student who is mentioned in numerous articles as the great success of this system.
And we have his credentials as having cashed in with Reddit. Reddit it cool and valuable, but it's also not profitable after all these years, which should be considered when talking about things that are expected to yield some sort of economic value and not just a cash out for a property that never manages to create positive cash flow.
He also pooh-poohs a scheme by Peter Thiel which is a privately financed personal pilot project for 20 talented young adults a year by investing in their work without requiring ownership of whatever they come up with. He criticizes this plan for only applying to 20 people even though it was never meant to scale to the populace, it has always been about giving very talented young adults who are already working on something interesting an alternative to college debt. He then as a counter example points to a system with literally millions of students as input which has produced a student in Mongolia who was accepted to MIT, the same student who is mentioned in numerous articles as the great success of this system.
And we have his credentials as having cashed in with Reddit. Reddit it cool and valuable, but it's also not profitable after all these years, which should be considered when talking about things that are expected to yield some sort of economic value and not just a cash out for a property that never manages to create positive cash flow.
Thanks for the summary. Reading articles is so 5 years ago.
From what I've read it seems that Reddit is unprofitable more by choice than by anything else though. They refuse any serious attempt to monetize with ads, thinking (foolishly, I would say) that it would scare their audience away. The types of ads they do run are silly and light-hearted. An Amazon affiliate ad for the book "Crafting With Cat Hair" was a personal favorite. So while you do have a valid point -- they're not (or barely) profitable, I think it should be framed in this context for understanding: they're not profitable by choice. I personally don't think making a switch and putting "real" ads up on their site would make a damn bit of difference. Why should anyone care? They're a business, they should make money. People are used to ads. They're No Big Deal at all. Besides, where else would be people go? It's not like there's a better alternative.
From what I've read it seems that Reddit is unprofitable more by choice than by anything else though. They refuse any serious attempt to monetize with ads, thinking (foolishly, I would say) that it would scare their audience away. The types of ads they do run are silly and light-hearted. An Amazon affiliate ad for the book "Crafting With Cat Hair" was a personal favorite. So while you do have a valid point -- they're not (or barely) profitable, I think it should be framed in this context for understanding: they're not profitable by choice. I personally don't think making a switch and putting "real" ads up on their site would make a damn bit of difference. Why should anyone care? They're a business, they should make money. People are used to ads. They're No Big Deal at all. Besides, where else would be people go? It's not like there's a better alternative.
Interesting read, I do not partake in Reddit very often (the comments are mostly more than meaningless, harsh like a school yard bully). Although I have found a couple subreddits that do not fit my preconceived view of redditors.
Alexis' article has a lot of truths in it, supplemental education is a necessity in the IT field, tech changes sooo fast. Most people wont attend a college that is a front runner in its respective fields. Often times the professors are teaching slightly outdated technologies or versions of technologies. MOOC (massive open online courses) and learn to code sites help fill this gap. Perhaps they may become more common as people take a look back on how much they invested in school and how they could make it more cost effective while still becoming knowledgable in their interests/professions.
Alexis' article has a lot of truths in it, supplemental education is a necessity in the IT field, tech changes sooo fast. Most people wont attend a college that is a front runner in its respective fields. Often times the professors are teaching slightly outdated technologies or versions of technologies. MOOC (massive open online courses) and learn to code sites help fill this gap. Perhaps they may become more common as people take a look back on how much they invested in school and how they could make it more cost effective while still becoming knowledgable in their interests/professions.
It's all about the subreddits, wil421. Just like twitter is only as interesting as we choose to make it (to whom we subscribe) so is reddit. What's your passion? There are amazing comments in massive communities like http://askscience.reddit.com
I guess I havent got past the general audience subreddits. Thanks for responding, I am going to find a couple this week to start reading. You've inspired me.
I agree that multiple approaches towards learning will facilitate entrepreneurship and innovation, but I think this article missed something important; the Self-Learner. College Education and Supplemental Education have something very basic in common; the information is provided to you. Conceptually speaking, this implies that there is a limitation to the amount that you learn. Because the person learning is reliant on being provided with information to learn, they will only learn what is provided. Conceptually speaking, this seems like a somewhat controlled (in-the-box) approach towards learning, and does not really remind me of entrepreneurship and innovation. In real world practice, this does not hold true because people are always looking for more to learn. People are not limited, especially in today’s Information Age. Being able to find new information to learn with no limitations is an extremely powerful concept. And I think this is what was missing from the article. I call it the Self-Learner, but I'm sure there are many different names for it; The Tinkerer, the Enthusiast, the Hacker, etc. This is someone that finds so much enjoyment in learning about a specific topic or craft that they pursue it as their Passion. Depending on their level of enjoyment and/or drive to learn, I believe that the Self-Learner approach provides an unlimited potential with regards to learning. So where College Education and Supplemental Education might eventually run out of material to provide to you, the Self-Learner never runs out of material because they are always driven to learn more. And the longer they pursue their Passion, the more they learn, and the better they become at their craft. I think this is an extremely important aspect of entrepreneurship and innovation. I think you'll find that most successful innovators practice self-learning in one form or another throughout their life. They may have been participating in College Education and Supplemental Education, but it was the stuff they learned on their own that really gave them the skills to do something amazing.
What innovation crisis?
My thought exactly. If there is a crisis of innovation I think it hardly stems from a lack of skills or desire. I am constantly amazed by the level of technical expertise on display in every even remotely technical community I am part of. If a crisis exists I think it stems primarily from the current economic climate and risks associated to that as well as how hard it is to rebound after failure.
Ah, "crisis". The most overused word of our day.
From what I can see real innovation slowed dramatically in the '70s. The world my grandfather died in was dramatically different than the one to which he'd been born - transportation, medicine, and communications had all taken dramatic leaps. If I live to the same age it's likely the only really dramatic change during my life will have been the introduction of the internet.
From what I can see real innovation slowed dramatically in the '70s. The world my grandfather died in was dramatically different than the one to which he'd been born - transportation, medicine, and communications had all taken dramatic leaps. If I live to the same age it's likely the only really dramatic change during my life will have been the introduction of the internet.
What exactly is an innovation crisis? And how is that the country containing silicon valley has one?
alexis gets far too much attention for coming up with a clever name for a link sharing website. i don't care if his nosql install has two tables.
Agreed.
I saw him give a talk at Google yesterday (my short take on it http://markwatson.com/blog/2013-10/google-author-talk-alexis.... He had a lot of good ideas, some reflected in this article. He didn't make any age related comments yesterday, perhaps because he had someone with grey hair and beard sitting in front of him (that would be me :-)
He seems like a great guy who cares about people and the future.
He seems like a great guy who cares about people and the future.
Alexis is more concerned with crafting and selling his own brand than anything else. Its become really obvious lately.
Couldn't agree more. That dude hadn't done anything in 8 years since he and Steve started reddit.
Hows the book sale going, Alexis?
Pretty well, #4 national bestseller, but more exciting is all the people tweeting at me that they've started programming, or just doing the stuff they've always just been thinking about doing online. Even a few people motivated to get engaged politically.
What are you working on these days?
What are you working on these days?
I haven't even read the article but the title alone is pure hyperbole. The US has no innovation crisis. To borrow a phrase: If Europe would have built Facebook, Europe would have built Facebook.
I think some people are missing the point of the article. Alexis is talking about how there is a growing paradigm of doing things differently, educating oneself differently, and making a living differently. There still is the received view that you are supposed to educate yourself going through 4 year university program and you make a living working 9-5 at some Megacorp. Inc. This paradigm still works well for a vast majority of people, but at the same time, a considerable portion of population is starting to find it hopeless. There is a serious anomaly in the received view for millions of young people. I know several friends who are recent grads (Non-CS/engineering) and they are finding it extremely difficult to find an entry job in their field. Alexis is saying that there is another way of doing things.
I wrote about my experience meeting Alexis just this morning (http://dmtri.com/posts/28/alexis_ohanian_-_%22i_don%27t_regr...).
I wrote about my experience meeting Alexis just this morning (http://dmtri.com/posts/28/alexis_ohanian_-_%22i_don%27t_regr...).
A single twenty something is going to have far more flexible hours and than a 37 year old man with a wife and two kids one of which has a disability and needs extra care. I would imagine the 37 year old does a lot more in a day than the 20 something although not all of that is at work.
While he has less business value he still has a ton of value as a human being and should be treated as such. If we expect our businesses to treat humans just like machine or office appliance than I guess not making that distinction is ok. But if we want to live in a society were we value people and make room for everyone to be successful than this matters.
The second part of this is spot on. College doesn't give you everything you need and code schools don't teach you everything you need either.