Do you think people do Office Space style work out of the goodness of their own hearts?
> That’s frankly ridiculous.
The feeling is mutual.
The world is full of software that people built because it’s interesting and/or useful. Linux for example was created as a hobby project during college.
People love to create. Just because YOU wouldn’t touch software doesn’t mean it’s true for everyone.
If you're so inclined to work on things for your own pleasure, please do give us a hand by solving some of these.
And I do contribute to open source, but I prefer to work on stuff that isn’t connected to some company.
That's exactly my point.
I work in a field that is really very important, but it's not interesting enough for you to work on purely for your own amusement. That's why there needs to be a financial incentive.
> "Esqueleto, a SQL DSL for Haskell"
The code specific to the business is proprietary.
Obviously.
You seem to be under the impression that unless people are coerced they'll only work on projects that entertain them in some way, like a child playing with bubbles.
I feel sorry for you that you have such a poor opinion of humanity. Personally, I think humans are curious, collaborative, and like to build things. Yes they like to build things they find interesting but interesting is a wide concept. If my Mom got cancer then I'd probably be more likely to work on cancer software.
I want to live in a world where people can voluntarily work together to build things based on shared interests, whatever those interests might be. A world where people aren't forced to submit to business owners like you.
I’m aware that people like to create things, but that depends on what those things are. Your offer to work on cancer software to help cure your mother’s hypothetical cancer only comes with intrinsic motivation. If we relied on that, we would not have made the progress in that field that we have made, and many more people would be dead.
My mother has cancer. I’m quite glad the scientists working on researching better treatments are actually getting paid.
> A world where people aren't forced to submit to business owners like you.
It’s curious that you have such contempt for entrepreneurs on a website themed around entrepreneurship and published by a venture capital firm.
---
I get the feeling you’re no stranger to the words “anarchist”, “ancap”, and “communist”, so I’ll just leave this here:
>writing software for banks or insurance companies
Look at Gimp. It's the software that people like to write but not the one designers like to use.
There was this submission: 'Ask HN: How might HN build a social network together?' [1]. With Mastodon, people create a social network, but one that is unnecessarily inefficient. Why hasn't that submission led to a better social network?
Ford is quoted with saying: 'People would have asked for faster horses'.
How do you give the people with new ideas the power to implement them?
It’s no wonder projects like GIMP don’t take off because these developers work on it in their spare time. They don’t have the time or energy to fully commit to it because they’re busy being forced to write someone else’s software.
Linux, for example, was built over the course of 8 years while Linus Torvalds was in college. He was able to do so because his college in Finland provided room and board and the freedom to pursue his interests alongside his studies.
You proved my point again. Everything in your responses is about YOU and YOUR software and what people can do for YOU.
If you want someone to work on your project you should have to convince them that it’s worth their time. Instead they rely on you for insurance and a livelihood. If you think your employees would still work for you if they had the freedom to pursue their own interests then I have a bridge to sell you.
This is interesting because you look at the situation from a different point of view. I was wondering how somebody can influence others to create change and you focus on how to remove influence to create change.
I believe that you can never supply enough resources for people to feel free to implement change. What are the basic needs that have to be met? I would like to say that they are already met. Every software developer can reduce their working hours to a minimum and have ample time to pursue whatever they want.
People are already empowered but they lack motivation. Compared to the global south, the north has plenty of resources. But most citizens don't invest them. Instead they spend them on vacations, clothing, cars and houses because they want to match their peers.
With that perspective, what could incentivize people whose basic needs are met, to spend their time on innovations?
Reducing your hours is a risky proposal. Even asking your boss about it can be a big risk. Becoming a contractor is a big risk too. The reality is that, for most people, their boss owns most of their lives, and trying to go off on their own is very risky. Plus you risk messing up your resume and having to explain yourself which is yet another thing working against you.
So yes, being employed might put food on your table and a roof over your head. If your a software developer it'll even let you buy gadgets and take vacations. However, the current system prevents people from reaching farther up Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, because taking that next step to pursue your own interests in very risky and expensive.
So to answer your question, I don't think you need incentives. You need to enable people to pursue their intrinsic motivations.
But that's kind of the point. In a world where there is no majority to give people the space for their intrinsic motivation, who is going to pursue innovative ideas? People could make it socially acceptable to take time off or to work less, but they don't. If you have to nudge them to make that change, you are back at square one: 'How do you give the people with new ideas the power to implement them?'
If it is work itself that inhibits people from pursuing their intrinsic motivation, how could you make it economically viable to give everybody the space for their intrinsic motivations? If it is not viable, doesn't that leave us with incentives?
Humans won’t create without incentives? That’s frankly ridiculous.