[s3000]

You are not fully arguing his point:

>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?

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33999296

[serverholic]

You empower people by making sure their basic needs are taken care of so they have the freedom to fully pursue these projects.

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.

[s3000]

>You empower people by making sure their basic needs are taken care of so they have the freedom to fully pursue these projects.

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?

[serverholic]

Most people spend the best part of their day pursuing their employers interests instead of their own. It's no wonder people want to relax during their time off! Clothing, cars, and houses become coping mechanisms for dealing with their situation. This is a very real reality for a lot of people.

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.

[s3000]

How much can be accomplished by somebody who isn't willing to take as much risk for their idea as women take for having a child? Of course, paternity leave shows that most men need an incentive to take time off for their children.

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?

[yakshaving_jgt]

Ok. If I take care of your basic needs, will you come and write my insurance software?

[serverholic]

Man, you really are fixated on getting people to do things for you.

[yakshaving_jgt]

I think you’re missing the point. I’m not interested in a business relationship with you. The point is that I need certain things to get done, and it’s not feasible to sit around and hope that enough people decide to take on my specific problems as their passion project. And if taking care of someone’s basic needs is sufficient, why would they work on my software when they could do anything else that is more enjoyable?

[serverholic]

The fact that you think I have any interest in working with you is amazing. I have negative interest in that.

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.

[yakshaving_jgt]

I wish you all the best.