I was explaining this new idea I had that related to blockchain technology in an interview not to long ago.
The idea I had was to distribute assets on the blockchain to cut out the middle man in the media industry. Royalties no longer needed to go through the variety of collection agencies. That could be handled via smart contracts. As I am explaining this idea the person across from me asked, "What about the folks doing those jobs? What happens to them?".
Stopped in my tracks.
That question is one that I had never truly thought of. As creators, indie hackers, and entrepreneurs we often think of making an end users life easier, more enjoyable, or at the very least suck less. But, how often are we thinking about the socioeconomic impact of our ideas? How much should we be thinking about them?
Destroying the livelihood of another person is not an enjoyable thought. But it's a very real possibility given the skills, background, and ideas we all have. We focus on launching new ideas, iterating quickly, and trying to become successful on our own. Often times not thinking about the societal implications of what we are launching.
Did Mark Zuckerberg intend to have his platform used for election meddling? Not likely. Did Satoshi Nakamoto intend to have Bitcoin be in the news for child pornography? Not likely.
This is a tough question to answer. Often times an idea that we launched two months ago is going to morph into something else. We are going to iterate quickly, develop new features, and aim to please our end users. With speed comes tunnel vision, and tunnel vision is how we can do something that we never intended on doing.
By the way, there is no right answer here. Some ideas are going to have more of a socioeconomic impact than others. Others can even have a POSITIVE socioeconomic impact. So this isn't to say that we must change the way we are thinking.
But we should start thinking in terms of a larger context than just ourselves and our users.
- How will my idea change the users life for the better? Or make it more enjoyable?
- How will my idea change society for non-users? Will it be positive or negative? (i.e. What if apps were never created? Would folks not have cell phones at dinner?)
- Is there a different idea that I can put my energy into that will benefit not only my users, but society as a whole?
These are questions I am beginning to ask myself when thinking of a new project. Again answers to these questions should not dictate your ideas, but they should help inform them.
This isn't to say that choosing an idea that has a negative socioeconomic impact is wrong. Because often times there is no clear answer. As I mentioned earlier, ideas evolve, and therefore so does the impact of that idea. So the questions are not just at design phase, but continuous.
In an article published in 2015 on Virgin it is clear that entrepreneurship is driving our economy. Economic growth, job creation, and innovation continue to be on the rise. But in reading that article, perhaps, empathy for what we may be leaving behind is not.
I will close with this, as an indie hacker are you concerned about the socioeconomic impact of your ideas? Does it matter to you? If so, why and if not why not?
My Latest Indie Hacker Project
It is easy to fall in the trap of knowing more than you think you do. In talking with folks locally and on Twitter it became clear to me that a lot of folks are struggling to get started in learning Amazon Web Services. There is a vast sea of information out there regarding AWS and people are getting lost in all of it.
Inspired by this problem, I decided to start writing a book. It focuses on learning AWS by actually using it to solve a practical problem. Hosting, delivering, and securing static websites using Amazon Web Services.
You can stay updated on the progress of the book here. Feel free to find me on Twitter as well as I am always happy to answer questions.
I have a few thoughts on the opening story here. Job creation and destruction are a natural part of any market driven by innovation and capitalism, and they're difficult to reason about without putting a lot of thought and research into it. I haven't done enough of that thinking myself, but I have done a little, and here's some food for thought:
First, job creation is rarely discussed, but we're creating jobs at an astonishing rate. I believe it's similar to or in excess of the number of jobs destroyed each month. And yet it's easier to focus on job destruction, because that's scary and it's what makes headlines. A better way to look at things imo is through the lens of change: things change. The world changes. Many jobs that made sense 100 or 50 or even 20 years ago don't make as much sense today, and that's often a symptom of progress rather than harm.
Second, job destruction isn't always as bleak as it sounds. If you are a coal miner and all you know is coal mining and it's been in your family for generations, sure, it's tough to deal with that situation. But if you're working in media at some sort of collection agency, it's unlikely that you've built an entire career out of this, and that your skills will suddenly become obsolete. It's more likely that you're job-hopping every 2-10 years, and when it comes time to find a new job you'll simply be more likely to look at a growing industry than a dying one. Many jobs are "destroyed" in a way that affects very few people negatively.
All that said, I agree with the premise. We should put more thought into the results of the businesses we create, and the things we're incentivized to do to make our businesses succeed. Stripe does a good job at this, as their incentives are well-aligned with their customers' dreams and desires. Similarly, I talked to Austen Allred of Lambda School, and he's done a great job aligning incentives as well. I think his approach will be eye-opening to people who want to have a positive impact.
I agree 100% that job creation is much higher than job destruction in terms of what we as creators are fostering. I would venture to guess that most ideas/businesses that are created to solve a problem end up spawning for more jobs than they destroy.
Job destruction is incredibly difficult to analyze because it depends on individuals like you mention. A coal miner that only knows coal mining is going to view his job becoming obsolete in a much different way. I think this comes down to experience or years of knowledge.
If you only stay at a job for 2-3 years, than you probably know how to pivot to something else. Versus you stay at a job for 25 years, than pivoting becomes harder as you likely have fallen behind.
My point with this article is that we as creators should at least ask ourselves, what impact is my idea going to have on others? Positive or negative is subjective based on the individual, but the process of asking the question is a step in the right direction.
So?
I know a bunch of angry textile workers who smashed up new industrial gear that automated their jobs. They were called Luddites. And they were 100% wrong to smash up that equipment over the short term economics of them getting the raw end of the deal because the macro of it played out by actually raising their living standards.
Truck drivers likely didn't feel bad for bookstore owners when Amazon ate their lunch. No one needs to feel bad for truck drivers when their turn comes. That's life and you have to adjust. If you can't then that's reality and it sucks, but if it sucks for you and it's in aggregate better for everyone else then so be it. If someone automates everything I know how to do that's cool too because I know it's coming so I can prepare and execute a strategy to keep playing the game. This is the age of disruption and adjusting is now a necessary survival skill.
This is plainly wrong, unfortunately - things did not get better for the Luddites, or even for their kids. For 50 years, average wages for workers didn't improve, and many made less. Good podcast on the Luddites here, might change your opinion on them https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/05/06/404701816/episode-621-when-luddites-attack#
That being said, clearly the industrial revolution was a good thing, and the modern information revolution is a good thing. It is much easier to move careers, though we often forget that for non-tech people, it isn't anywhere near as easy to pick up something new and roll with it.
Yes, bring on the revolution, but lets put things in place to make sure that we give people the best opportunity they can to adapt to those changes.
This seems to be the middle ground that perhaps is worth aiming for. There is always going to be the individuals that refuse to advance forward as they feel cheated. But for those that want to take action and see the long term benefit can we help them re-position themselves for their next round of success.
I don't believe there is one right answer in the question of what our responsibility is. But I do believe that we owe it to ourselves and at least to society to give it a few minutes of thought as we are approaching an idea that we know could have socioeconomic impacts.
I enjoyed reading your thoughts on this topic. I certainly agree that we have a responsibility to weigh the potential socioeconomic impacts and outcomes of what we produce. Attempting to anticipate the direct and indirect market effects our products will have is difficult but a worthwhile pursuit. If you ever have the chance to delve into different economic schools of thought (Keynesian, Marxian, etc.) you absolutely should because it's rewarding and will give you even deeper insight. One area that consistently falls by the wayside when having this discussion is the lack of resources provided during labor-force transitions. That's where my main concern exists. Like @csallen addressed in his post, jobs are constantly in-flux and we cannot change that inherent element of the capitalist system. What we can do is generate ideas to ease the transition, facilitate training in our areas of expertise, and advocate that resources are allocated to the proper places so those impacted by market changes can still achieve economic prosperity.
This comment was deleted 5 years ago.