A graphical comparison between employees, freelancers and makers.(elzr.com)
elzr.com
A graphical comparison between employees, freelancers and makers.
http://elzr.com/posts/the-dream/
8 comments
"Any maker is lucky to have a single product in his/her lifetime succeed."
Not nowadays any more, you can make several iPhone apps, web sites, etc. The products don't necessarily create millions, but they may be good investements.
For example, I make a crappy iPhone app in two days -> publish -> app makes $1000 -> good investment for me. For me, success=good investments of my time & money.
Not nowadays any more, you can make several iPhone apps, web sites, etc. The products don't necessarily create millions, but they may be good investements.
For example, I make a crappy iPhone app in two days -> publish -> app makes $1000 -> good investment for me. For me, success=good investments of my time & money.
If you are a successful "maker", you will occasionally need employees to help you grow. I wonder if its wise to refer to this class of people as "servants" which has a denigrating tone to it.
I think the point is to make unemployed people feel superior.
Being unemployed is not always fun, it's in society's interest to cheer us up a little bit :) So we at least keep trying to make something.
Read his first comment. Boss is dutch for master or so I'm told so it is an accurate reflection of the lack of control/power (particularly in the U.S. I gather because of health concerns?) an employee has.
I made a rough diagram like this a while back kind of tongue-in-cheek: http://files.dangrover.com/hierarchy_of_work.png
I think if I were to make a blog post or something out of it, I'd have to change a few things
I think if I were to make a blog post or something out of it, I'd have to change a few things
While lacking poetry, your chart seems more intellectually honest.
An employer is an abstraction layer that removes concerns outside one's area of expertise--someone in product development doesn't need to worry about getting press coverage or calculating payroll. Like any abstraction layer, it has costs and benefits. It can be appropriate or inappropriate, depending on your needs.
Employees, freelancers, and "makers" can all work on product, and can all deal with customers. Don't try to tell me that a carpenter employed by a company doesn't "make" product.
Also, this graph's comparisons don't work. A start-up "makes" products, but an employee doesn't "make" a job. It's nonsensical.
Employees, freelancers, and "makers" can all work on product, and can all deal with customers. Don't try to tell me that a carpenter employed by a company doesn't "make" product.
Also, this graph's comparisons don't work. A start-up "makes" products, but an employee doesn't "make" a job. It's nonsensical.
But an employee tends to be paid for performing tasks through an abstraction layer. They may make products but the boss does not buy the product off of them, it buys their service.
The graphic lacks little beyond greater-than symbols in it's condemnation of "servants". The connotations behind the language used, the number of lines linking concepts, and the horizontal orientation in relation to the word "work" illustrate a particular worldview. So makers are better than servants - I wouldn't tell my startup's first employee that!
Eli is implying that those who provide products independently and directly to consumers are superior to those working in a structured environment. It explains his choice of profession, but little else.
Eli is implying that those who provide products independently and directly to consumers are superior to those working in a structured environment. It explains his choice of profession, but little else.
Depends, the first employee of a startup is probably in a different position to most employees.
The servant-mercenary-artisan terms aren't really necessary.
A good maker is also servant - to a vision, a muse, a genius or an ideal; or to the pragmatic makers who are also sellers: to a market need, to customers.
The diagram for an employee is also a little misleading, as today, most employees will have a series of employers over time, just as a freelancer mostly have a series of projects over time (though they can have them simultaneously).
A good maker is also servant - to a vision, a muse, a genius or an ideal; or to the pragmatic makers who are also sellers: to a market need, to customers.
The diagram for an employee is also a little misleading, as today, most employees will have a series of employers over time, just as a freelancer mostly have a series of projects over time (though they can have them simultaneously).
freelancer - servant of a dozen different bosses (without the benefits of being an employee)
there, fixed the chart for you...
there, fixed the chart for you...
So which of the people in this have capital and which ones are the wage-laborers?
Put another way: the median contribution of an employee at a great company is much higher than the median contribution of a maker or freelancer. The average contribution is up for discussion, but it is skewed towards the very few outlandishly successful.