This is the same reason why startups often phrase what they are trying to do as "change the world" and not "become filthy rich" to their employees.

I think most startups (at least originally) did start out as ‘change the world’. When you find out that changing the world is kinda hard, ‘become filthy rich’ starts to sound like a good alternative.

They'd be structured differently if they were truly about changing the world, instead of just being vehicles for wealth accumulation.

Absolutely. And you'd see much less hypergrowth mindset, and a willingness to go slow, steady, and do it right.

How would the structure change?

Not a single professional investor does so on the basis of “change the world”. Maybe “create a monopolized market”, that’s a changed world.

You're just falling for the propaganda.

As a startup person, I like the startups where the spiel is “Get filthy rich by changing the world” the most. As long as I get to partake in the riches.

I've had good rapport with those who are honest about their startups being businesses, as they're usually also the same types who understand that working for them is just a job, and that a job at a startup comes with its own risks, as well.

People that go out of their way to say that their startups have a higher mission make me uneasy. I don't know if they're just trying to convince others that they're running something other than for-profit businesses driven by expected returns on investment for investors, or if they truly believe it themselves. It's either borderline manipulation or delusion, and neither are something I want to hitch myself to.

I can think of a couple of companies whose public face represents "Get filthy rich by changing the world". Tesla, for one. Maybe SpaceX too.

Oh, no, that reads like I just turned into a Musk fanboy. Surely there's got to be some non-Musk company that I can add to that list?

> Surely there's got to be some non-Musk company that I can add to that list?

Biotech startups? Develop a cure for horrible disease X (save lives, give people a few more years with their families, etc–feels good?)–and then get rich selling that cure.

I think Blue Origin's messaging is in principle similar to SpaceX (Bezos wants to save the environment by moving manufacturing to orbit, etc.) It is just that SpaceX rather obviously delivers on that message, and has grown rich delivering; Blue Origin hasn't delivered much yet, and it is hard to grow rich prior to delivery–but maybe, give them a few more years, they'll finally get their act together, and they'll become more SpaceX-like.

It seems to be the case that if you give someone a bunch of money, they'll stop wanting to change the world for the better. There are thousands of billionaires who could each end hunger and homelessness but have chosen not to.

The resources available to nation states dwarf those of billionaires, and it’s they’re specific actual job to do it, yet they too have failed to end hunger and homelessness. Bill Gates has sunk untold billions into humanitarian aid and its a drop in the ocean.

Eventually, you start looking into why the governments fail to end hunger and homelessness. Then, people start calling you a tankie.

Because hunger and homeless ness were of course unknown under Stalinism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_...

I'm not seeing anything about homelessness in the article you linked to. Just for perspective, here's the opposite side of the coin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-communist_mass_killings

As a regular person, I like startups where the spiel is "Have a fabulous life and be pretty comfortable while doing things that even after some serious devil's advocacy seem as if they might make the world a better place".

I was impressed when I met the founders of Gaikai (a zero-day network game distribution system later bought by Sony), and asked them what the goal was. Answer: "Buy an island". Honesty has its merits.

I had a VP at a large company who was sharing her background. When she talked about her failed start up she said "we did it cause we wanted to be MILLIONAIRES... and that didn't work out so here I am".

It was funny and personable. Still one of the better VPs I remember.

Bit of a false distinction to me.

Because how to get filthy rich is by changing (improving) the world.

Hahahaha you are so funny!

Oh, my sweet summer child.

It's one way to do it, not the only or simplest one? And once someone had done it, they tend to transition a bit to exploitation mode because why not (they think)? Is my impression

Yeah - the problem is that "a dream fuffilling job" without major filtering like med or law school effectively has a "virtual compensation" from desirability of the job. We see the reverse for (potentially literally) shit jobs or in ill repute. The economy accounts for your feelings but it cannot care about them.

Pretty sure most ppl become nurses for other reasons

They become nurses because it's a relatively easy (two years at a CC) to become an RN, and the pay is pretty good.

It's easy on the body, compared to similar paid blue collar jobs, like union construction. And it seems better than office work.

Durning the AIDS crisis a lot of nurses--who could quit did. They quit because many were legitmetly scared.

Hospitals got worried, and told their marketing departments to throw out the word, "We need nurses!". Most smaller hospitals had a hard time keeping qualified egos (The Medical Doctor), and they couldn't be bothered besides doing just the bare minimum.

Let's not forget their are many classifications of nurses (RN, LVN, etc., and porely trained Candy Stripers, or cheap help, hospitals (especially union controlled) use instead of nurses. Some are not porely trained though, but nursing unions don't like competition. I'm not berating unions. Moneynot spent on help seems to go to administrators anyway.)

(I went to school with nursing students. Most were divorced. Most were around mid 30's. This was in the 90's. Now nursing is a good path to middleclass for immigrants.)

"They become nurses because it's a relatively easy (two years at a CC) to become an RN, and the pay is pretty good."

That is no longer the case and many now require 4 year bachelor programs to be hired as RN nurses. My wife has her bachelors in nursing and runs an ER and the hiring requirements includes a bachelors degree in nursing and not a 2 year degree.