Silicon Valley doesn't create jobs; it's wiping out middle-class jobs(cnn.com)
cnn.com
Silicon Valley doesn't create jobs; it's wiping out middle-class jobs
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/18/opinions/wheeler-silicon-valley-jobs/index.html
18 comments
[deleted]
It's destroying traditional middle class jobs of his peers, like teachers, doctors, architects, etc. but I think he has missed the fact that the new middle class jobs are things like developers and data scientists.
[deleted]
I am so sick of articles like this which make some broad moral judgement about the new tech economy. This one is even worse than most because the author doesn't even attempt to give some statistical merit to his argument. Instead he takes the lazy route of quoting some quasi-anecdotal BS about how all the young millennials are making their way to SV to develop the next big app as if they're the Oakies of the dustbowl heading west to pick oranges.
The fact is, tech has fundamentally restructured the labor market. Some classes of people will do well, and some will lose out. It is not good or evil. What will really determine whether we win out as a society will be how we invest in things like education and infrastructure. Arguments that attempt to write off tech full cloth as evil are useless, as are the pollyanas who think tech will solve everything.
The fact is, tech has fundamentally restructured the labor market. Some classes of people will do well, and some will lose out. It is not good or evil. What will really determine whether we win out as a society will be how we invest in things like education and infrastructure. Arguments that attempt to write off tech full cloth as evil are useless, as are the pollyanas who think tech will solve everything.
> Some classes of people will do well, and some will lose out.
If he's right about the automation part (I think he is), and if we're as stupid as we were in the 1930s, then the class of people who do well is likely to be quite smaller than the class of people who lose out big time.
Automation is wonderful. Destroying jobs is amazing. For most jobs, anyway. The only awful thing about that is the loss of revenue. And the stigmatization of the unemployed.
With technology that destroys more jobs than it creates, we don't have many solutions. We could generalise the 4 days work-week. Then 3 days… Or we could try unconditional basic income. Both, maybe? Or, we can wait until we're all deep in the poo, such that we get an increasing number of violent uprisings, leading to revolutions or fascism. Again.
If he's right about the automation part (I think he is), and if we're as stupid as we were in the 1930s, then the class of people who do well is likely to be quite smaller than the class of people who lose out big time.
Automation is wonderful. Destroying jobs is amazing. For most jobs, anyway. The only awful thing about that is the loss of revenue. And the stigmatization of the unemployed.
With technology that destroys more jobs than it creates, we don't have many solutions. We could generalise the 4 days work-week. Then 3 days… Or we could try unconditional basic income. Both, maybe? Or, we can wait until we're all deep in the poo, such that we get an increasing number of violent uprisings, leading to revolutions or fascism. Again.
I wish more people saw this the way that you do. You're right. Destroying "work", that is no longer needed, benefits society. It's a widespread loss of income that causes everything to go to hell. The two don't need to be correlated.
Or as someone wrote on HN once, and which is also probably my favourite quote from here, "No job is the goal. No money is the problem.".
EDIT: 'nostromo @ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8987008
EDIT: 'nostromo @ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8987008
I once searched for a catchy phrase to capture this. Something that could catch on even in a time where politician supposedly "fight unemployment". Something like "Systematic Annihilation of Unwanted Work".
> Automation is wonderful. Destroying jobs is amazing. For most jobs, anyway.
Right. Increasing efficiency is a double edged sword, and we will have to walk a very fine line if we want to make this ongoing tech revolution work for the greater good.
Right. Increasing efficiency is a double edged sword, and we will have to walk a very fine line if we want to make this ongoing tech revolution work for the greater good.
You need to add the time dimension to your statement "Some classes of people will do well, and some will lose out". The timeframe is not a couple of years, which are needed to transfrom one class of labor into another class of labor. This transformation ( the class of losers becoming the class of winners) takes more than three generations. Imagine the social consequences of this.
I am not a Luddite. The government policy is run by the super winners, whose interest is not so much about the losers, except by getting votes from the losers by throwing some breadcrumbs.
I am not a Luddite. The government policy is run by the super winners, whose interest is not so much about the losers, except by getting votes from the losers by throwing some breadcrumbs.
And what exactly do you think the now underemployed is going to do with their time?
Before getting too dismissive of the article: ask what happens when there are large numbers of underemployeed young men and women with no money, no jobs, no prospects.
They don't just stay at home.
Before getting too dismissive of the article: ask what happens when there are large numbers of underemployeed young men and women with no money, no jobs, no prospects.
They don't just stay at home.
>Arguments that attempt to write off tech full cloth as evil are useless, as are the pollyanas who think tech will solve everything.
As is techno-determinism, in which we pretend that technology determines the structure of society rather than society choosing what sorts of technologies it builds.
As is techno-determinism, in which we pretend that technology determines the structure of society rather than society choosing what sorts of technologies it builds.
Like 'llamataboot I think that ultimately it's a feedback loop, but come to think of it, it's hard to deny how technology changes society. Look at agriculture, or printing press.
Moreover, society itself doesn't really control itself, it's just a big group of agents with different goals and ideas, that all follow incentive structures. It seems much easier for a new technology to change the society than for the society to decide "what sorts of technologies it builds".
Moreover, society itself doesn't really control itself, it's just a big group of agents with different goals and ideas, that all follow incentive structures. It seems much easier for a new technology to change the society than for the society to decide "what sorts of technologies it builds".
Of course it's a feedback loop. But, just as truly, the design and incentive control we exercise over institutions is a "social technology" that can radically alter which way history goes. Society does decide what sorts of technologies it builds. That's why we're years behind on green energy, for instance: we could have been funding all research proposals regarding thorium reactors or, more speculatively, nuclear fusion decades ago. Society chose to stick with fossil fuels. Likewise, we could have built modern networked operating systems with capability security from the ground up -- but we chose, collectively, to stick with a weaker security model that bore more resemblance to what came before it.
I'm pretty sure there is a feedback loop here - not one way causation in either direction.
Actually, if it reduces the living standard and opportunities of the majority of people, that's pretty much the definition of 'evil'. We don't know if that's the actual outcome yet, but we should be aware of the possibility and make choices to try to avoid it.
Your definition of 'evil' totally removes intent. It can be unacceptable, unfortunate, or something else. But 'evil' implies unmitigated badness. This is not a black and white issue.
Besides, you're begging the question. The jury is still out on whether or not overall quality of life will in fact decrease. Historical trends strongly suggest otherwise. Let me be clear, I'm not saying everything will be dandy. I just don't know. And you don't either.
Besides, you're begging the question. The jury is still out on whether or not overall quality of life will in fact decrease. Historical trends strongly suggest otherwise. Let me be clear, I'm not saying everything will be dandy. I just don't know. And you don't either.
Your second paragraph makes it seem as though you didn't read my comment. If you had, it seems unlikely that you would have condescendingly said "Let me be clear" before repeating a point I had already made. Otherwise, why did you do that?
But I accept that there is some grayness around the idea of intent. I think that that gets resolved with the concept of responsibility. Once the possibility that our actions could be causing harm is raised, we have the responsibility to be aware of this and avoid it if we can, otherwise we are just as culpable as someone who 'intended' harm. Not taking the possibility seriously makes us culpable if harm occurs.
But I accept that there is some grayness around the idea of intent. I think that that gets resolved with the concept of responsibility. Once the possibility that our actions could be causing harm is raised, we have the responsibility to be aware of this and avoid it if we can, otherwise we are just as culpable as someone who 'intended' harm. Not taking the possibility seriously makes us culpable if harm occurs.
I'm betting that people like Wheeler where the same ones who were crying out that the industrial revolution would bring only suffering and mass unemployment to most of society.
Oh but it did. All our ancestors had to do was failing to guide the economy through the tremendous productivity gains offered by mass manufacturing. To paraphrase Jacques Fresco, they had empty factories and starving unemployed. This makes no sense!
Speaking as a "millenial": that was painfully stupid and irritating to read.
Look: I don't want "jobs", not as an abstract commodity produced because someone decided everyone has to have a job, and that's that. I want a job that matches my skillset (it's reasonably good), compensates me well, and lets me actually contribute to human progress. If human progress has advanced so far that even someone with my skills is mostly unnecessary, I want a means of supplying for myself that minimizes the personal burden of labor on other people (note: not robots, not corporations, people), and enables me to get on with my life and have fun -- there's more to the world than careerism.
Yes, the sharing economy has been built on the extreme precarity of its workers. Yes, technology destroys "jobs". But overall, the problem here is not technology: it's capitalism.
Look: I don't want "jobs", not as an abstract commodity produced because someone decided everyone has to have a job, and that's that. I want a job that matches my skillset (it's reasonably good), compensates me well, and lets me actually contribute to human progress. If human progress has advanced so far that even someone with my skills is mostly unnecessary, I want a means of supplying for myself that minimizes the personal burden of labor on other people (note: not robots, not corporations, people), and enables me to get on with my life and have fun -- there's more to the world than careerism.
Yes, the sharing economy has been built on the extreme precarity of its workers. Yes, technology destroys "jobs". But overall, the problem here is not technology: it's capitalism.
"But overall, the problem here is not technology: it's capitalism."
Right. Capitalism is designed to maximize shareholder value. A higher standard of living for workers was a side effect. Was.
No other country has a working solution. Japan had their real estate collapse 18 years before the US, and never fully came back. Japan is an innovative country, yet they couldn't crack this problem. They tried heavy infrastructure spending to pump up the economy, and it helped a little.
The golden age for American workers coincides with the Communist period in Russia. That's not coincidental. From the 1920s to the 1970s, capitalism had competition. There was real fear among capitalists that if capitalism didn't deliver the goods to workers, the workers would vote to socialize industries. Britain did that, with the government running the coal, steel, railroad, airline, electric power, and telecommunications industries. It wasn't an unreasonable fear.
So the US had the New Deal under Roosevelt, and strong unions. After WWII, unions worked to keep wages high. There were explicit arrangements in the auto industry requiring wages to track productivity, so workers kept up. The auto and steel industries set the pattern for the rest of the economy. In the 1950s and 1960s, the USSR started to look like a serious economic competitor. The USSR built an atomic bomb, H-bombs, nuclear submarines, and a space program. Communism as a system looked like a threat.
That ended in the early 1980s, as the USSR stopped believing in its own "workers paradise". With fear of competition gone, capitalism could take a much harder line on its workers. It took a while, but now employers can do pretty much anything they want to without fear of retribution.
Right. Capitalism is designed to maximize shareholder value. A higher standard of living for workers was a side effect. Was.
No other country has a working solution. Japan had their real estate collapse 18 years before the US, and never fully came back. Japan is an innovative country, yet they couldn't crack this problem. They tried heavy infrastructure spending to pump up the economy, and it helped a little.
The golden age for American workers coincides with the Communist period in Russia. That's not coincidental. From the 1920s to the 1970s, capitalism had competition. There was real fear among capitalists that if capitalism didn't deliver the goods to workers, the workers would vote to socialize industries. Britain did that, with the government running the coal, steel, railroad, airline, electric power, and telecommunications industries. It wasn't an unreasonable fear.
So the US had the New Deal under Roosevelt, and strong unions. After WWII, unions worked to keep wages high. There were explicit arrangements in the auto industry requiring wages to track productivity, so workers kept up. The auto and steel industries set the pattern for the rest of the economy. In the 1950s and 1960s, the USSR started to look like a serious economic competitor. The USSR built an atomic bomb, H-bombs, nuclear submarines, and a space program. Communism as a system looked like a threat.
That ended in the early 1980s, as the USSR stopped believing in its own "workers paradise". With fear of competition gone, capitalism could take a much harder line on its workers. It took a while, but now employers can do pretty much anything they want to without fear of retribution.
I'd say China and India today are just as big of a threat, if not bigger, as the USSR was. Why don't we see this same competition now? Is it because it's not sensationalized? Because no one takes it seriously for some reason this time around? I honestly don't know, but if what we need is a worthy competitor, there are two just waiting for a slip up.
It seems especially dire when you consider that the western world's main export isn't a physical good, and it basically all hinges on the fact that the smart and able are allowed to succeed and produce "value", where as the smart and able in poorer countries don't have those opportunities. India and China make up half the world's population, an order of magnitude larger than the "western world", so I expect that they have far, far more able and smart people there just waiting to take the opportunity if it's given.
I think that when (if?) those countries catch up to our "modern standard of living", they'll quickly leave us in the dust.
At the same time I'm not sure it's quite as possible in such a connected world to have a competitor as isolated as the USSR was. The economy is far more global and intertwined than it was, maybe we'll all just boost the worldwide standard of living with cooperation instead of competition?
I honestly don't know what's going to happen down the road (and hold no strong ideas of what might, all outcomes seem equally as likely/unlikely to me), and neither does anyone else, but I wouldn't be surprised if the world doesn't change all that much. Factories have closed down, jobs were lost, and people ended up in a different kind of factory, now sitting at a desk staring at a computer instead of a machine on an assembly line.
Many people (here on HN especially) seem to think that jobs will disappear and not be replaced. In 1930, no one could have accurately predicted the world 100 years later. When machines started replacing factory workers, I doubt anyone would have expected us to all be staring at glorified tv screens and while banging away on our typewriters as a job, and that the some of the biggest companies around wouldn't actually sell anything physical, yet here we are. So who's to say that the next step is indeed something like basic income, instead of yet another version of the same factory? What if the next change in type of employment seems just as ridiculous and unimaginable today as today's world would to someone 100, even 50, years ago? Job Opening: Virtual Reality Tour Guide, must have at least 5 years experience in navigating WorldBook.com's(Facebook's VR world, launched 3 years ago) .
Well this got really off topic towards the end.
It seems especially dire when you consider that the western world's main export isn't a physical good, and it basically all hinges on the fact that the smart and able are allowed to succeed and produce "value", where as the smart and able in poorer countries don't have those opportunities. India and China make up half the world's population, an order of magnitude larger than the "western world", so I expect that they have far, far more able and smart people there just waiting to take the opportunity if it's given.
I think that when (if?) those countries catch up to our "modern standard of living", they'll quickly leave us in the dust.
At the same time I'm not sure it's quite as possible in such a connected world to have a competitor as isolated as the USSR was. The economy is far more global and intertwined than it was, maybe we'll all just boost the worldwide standard of living with cooperation instead of competition?
I honestly don't know what's going to happen down the road (and hold no strong ideas of what might, all outcomes seem equally as likely/unlikely to me), and neither does anyone else, but I wouldn't be surprised if the world doesn't change all that much. Factories have closed down, jobs were lost, and people ended up in a different kind of factory, now sitting at a desk staring at a computer instead of a machine on an assembly line.
Many people (here on HN especially) seem to think that jobs will disappear and not be replaced. In 1930, no one could have accurately predicted the world 100 years later. When machines started replacing factory workers, I doubt anyone would have expected us to all be staring at glorified tv screens and while banging away on our typewriters as a job, and that the some of the biggest companies around wouldn't actually sell anything physical, yet here we are. So who's to say that the next step is indeed something like basic income, instead of yet another version of the same factory? What if the next change in type of employment seems just as ridiculous and unimaginable today as today's world would to someone 100, even 50, years ago? Job Opening: Virtual Reality Tour Guide, must have at least 5 years experience in navigating WorldBook.com's(Facebook's VR world, launched 3 years ago) .
Well this got really off topic towards the end.
I'd agree easily that China and India are at least a big of a threat to the US position as top economy. There's nothing, other than inertia and maybe cultural influences, maintaining the status quo. I say maybe, because I don't know a lot about Indian and Chinese culture.
I feel that there's not a lot of concern here about the possibility of falling behind, because we're all entertained to a degree where we just don't care. So many people are always entertained by television, radio, music, sports, infotainment, and as a result they barely take their education, families, and work seriously, let alone global balance.
If we lost the 24/7 entertainment, we'd see a shift in perception and an increase in competitiveness and motivation.
I feel that there's not a lot of concern here about the possibility of falling behind, because we're all entertained to a degree where we just don't care. So many people are always entertained by television, radio, music, sports, infotainment, and as a result they barely take their education, families, and work seriously, let alone global balance.
If we lost the 24/7 entertainment, we'd see a shift in perception and an increase in competitiveness and motivation.
Yes, but your perspective does nothing for CNN's party line that capitalism is good and everyone needs to have a J.O.B. Those that are capable of getting off their ass and finding niches into which to apply their skills are largely irrelevant to their propaganda - which is mostly to fuel the fear and uncertainty in life and feed the witch hunt against anyone that stands in the way of their message.
In my mind, the thing that makes humans greater than machines is our talent to think, design, create and reason our ways to greater things; to do things that require a human touch - like caring for people. If machines are taking care of all the BS jobs that don't make use of our cognitive abilities, that leaves us to do what we do best - think, design, create and be human... and that is what everybody's J.O.B. should be, anything less than that is a complete failure of technology as far as I'm concerned.
In my mind, the thing that makes humans greater than machines is our talent to think, design, create and reason our ways to greater things; to do things that require a human touch - like caring for people. If machines are taking care of all the BS jobs that don't make use of our cognitive abilities, that leaves us to do what we do best - think, design, create and be human... and that is what everybody's J.O.B. should be, anything less than that is a complete failure of technology as far as I'm concerned.
It's a problem with capitalism insofar as under capitalism, the most successful companies will directly influence their government to protect their existing business model. You had a prime opportunity to rethink the entire auto-market, yet the US government instead gave massive bailouts to your big-3 auto makers, and your streets continue to be full of single-passenger Ford F-150s. In spite of massive regulatory resistance, companies like Uber, or Tesla (which yes, get some environmental tax credits, but it's a drop in the ocean compared to being considered "too big to fail") have still managed to grow.
It's not that there aren't jobs that need to be done. Instead, your laws and economy are structured to give an advantage to those who used to offer jobs that are no longer valuable.
It's not that there aren't jobs that need to be done. Instead, your laws and economy are structured to give an advantage to those who used to offer jobs that are no longer valuable.
I agree to a point, but would qualify this to the problem being unfettered capitalism in a vacuum of social investment. The growth in the knowledge economy has such a huge potential to level the playing field - but it can only do so if there is fair access to good education.
Here in the US, only those with means have a decent chance of getting the kind of education that enables them to join in the new class of workers, which results in a feedback loop and a widening income gap.
Here in the US, only those with means have a decent chance of getting the kind of education that enables them to join in the new class of workers, which results in a feedback loop and a widening income gap.
Excellent response!
I remember being a kid, and thinking that CNN must have some really intelligent, mature writing, that I was simply too young to understand. Now, they post these sensationalist headlines (I was expecting it to be a play on words, e.g. it was an article about funeral planning or life insurance), and fan the flames of idiocy with writing like this:
"And if you think your own job is safe, think again. New research predicts that nearly half of all jobs are susceptible to automation over the next two decades."
So silicon valley is bad _because_ they find more efficient ways to do things? Should we also be upset with anyone who sells a refrigerator, for making all those poor iceblock-expeditions and milkmen obsolete? Does the "\"sharing economy\"" (my quotes around their quotes, for how much they quote that term) mean that by using our cars, homes, tools, etc. more efficiently, and buying less new stuff, we're actually saying "drop dead" to the people who would have manufactured new things?
If there's a large number of people who hold degrees, who don't need the degree for the job they have, isn't that a fault with our education system? What about that bizarre arrogance that so many had in the 80s, where they thought their kids must have a degree so they don't end up in a "blue collar" job? So many would be earning good money now if they'd just gone to a trade school, and learned welding, plumbing, carpentry, HVAC, etc. instead of training for one of the office jobs which software has now made largely obsolete.
"And if you think your own job is safe, think again. New research predicts that nearly half of all jobs are susceptible to automation over the next two decades."
So silicon valley is bad _because_ they find more efficient ways to do things? Should we also be upset with anyone who sells a refrigerator, for making all those poor iceblock-expeditions and milkmen obsolete? Does the "\"sharing economy\"" (my quotes around their quotes, for how much they quote that term) mean that by using our cars, homes, tools, etc. more efficiently, and buying less new stuff, we're actually saying "drop dead" to the people who would have manufactured new things?
If there's a large number of people who hold degrees, who don't need the degree for the job they have, isn't that a fault with our education system? What about that bizarre arrogance that so many had in the 80s, where they thought their kids must have a degree so they don't end up in a "blue collar" job? So many would be earning good money now if they'd just gone to a trade school, and learned welding, plumbing, carpentry, HVAC, etc. instead of training for one of the office jobs which software has now made largely obsolete.
> I remember being a kid, and thinking that CNN must have some really intelligent, mature writing, that I was simply too young to understand. Now, they post these sensationalist headlines
Ironically, we can attribute the flourishing of trash articles like these to the new media landscape that has arrived due to the emergence of new technologies...
Ironically, we can attribute the flourishing of trash articles like these to the new media landscape that has arrived due to the emergence of new technologies...
I don't think so. When I go back and watch TV shows or read headlines from around when I was born, they weren't any better back then, I was simply too young to realize how ridiculous they all were.
Case in point, the mass hysteria around daycare sexual abuse and satanic rituals: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_preschool_trial
Case in point, the mass hysteria around daycare sexual abuse and satanic rituals: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_preschool_trial
I 100% agree that there has always been sensationalism in journalism - that's nothing new. But back then the volume of print media was limited by physical factors - it was expensive to get an article in print. The new economics of media has fundamentally changed the business models. There was no print equivalent of Buzzfeed for example.
My point is that the barrier to entry for shoddy journalism is so low that articles like this are flooding the medium more than ever.
My point is that the barrier to entry for shoddy journalism is so low that articles like this are flooding the medium more than ever.
You would probably find http://www.retroreport.org/ interesting
> Ironically, we can attribute the flourishing of trash articles like these to the new media landscape that has arrived due to the emergence of new technologies...
While I generally agree, it's up to us as a society to determine how new technologies are used. There's a difference between doing nuclear research and the research itself being the reason for nuclear weapons. People were responsible for the weapons / using technology in that way, but it is a fine line!
While I generally agree, it's up to us as a society to determine how new technologies are used. There's a difference between doing nuclear research and the research itself being the reason for nuclear weapons. People were responsible for the weapons / using technology in that way, but it is a fine line!
So why do you think there is nothing to this article?
While I generally agree the article is a hyperbolic polemic (I mean, really, "Third, we can elect leaders who are vocal about holding Silicon Valley accountable for their power over the entire American workforce, including white-collar employees"... what does that even mean?!), the concerns about the "sharing economy" are pretty reasonable.
Ultimately, these companies can easily trick folks into undervaluing their own labour. Now, I grant you, the folks involved are free to make that decision. But at minimum it should be an educated decision, and this is where the role of government or organized labour institutions can play an important role.
Meanwhile, long-term, we are almost certainly going down the path of increasing automation, and that means we must, as a society, have an open discussion about what that means, and what might need to be put into place to try and mitigate some of the downsides (which is, of course, why the concept of a minimum basic income has re-entered the popular discourse). That's not to say that this trend is a necessarily evil one. We shouldn't be trying to preserve the jobs of the poor buggy whip makers. But it may very well mean a sea change in the way society views work, government assistance and the social safety net, health care, pensions and old age support, etc.
Ultimately, these companies can easily trick folks into undervaluing their own labour. Now, I grant you, the folks involved are free to make that decision. But at minimum it should be an educated decision, and this is where the role of government or organized labour institutions can play an important role.
Meanwhile, long-term, we are almost certainly going down the path of increasing automation, and that means we must, as a society, have an open discussion about what that means, and what might need to be put into place to try and mitigate some of the downsides (which is, of course, why the concept of a minimum basic income has re-entered the popular discourse). That's not to say that this trend is a necessarily evil one. We shouldn't be trying to preserve the jobs of the poor buggy whip makers. But it may very well mean a sea change in the way society views work, government assistance and the social safety net, health care, pensions and old age support, etc.
So silicon valley is bad _because_ they find more
efficient ways to do things? Should we also be upset with
anyone who sells a refrigerator, for making all those
poor iceblock-expeditions and milkmen obsolete? Does the
"\"sharing economy\"" (my quotes around their quotes, for
how much they quote that term) mean that by using our
cars, homes, tools, etc. more efficiently, and buying
less new stuff, we're actually saying "drop dead" to the
people who would have manufactured new things?
We can let half the world starve, or we can educate and build for the future instead of the next big prophesied exit or fiscal quarter..
This article is the right side of an important issue poorly defended and abysmally presented.
Silicon Valley isn't trying to fuck over Millennials. Like a paperclip maximizer, it doesn't care either way.
Silicon Valley isn't trying to fuck over Millennials. Like a paperclip maximizer, it doesn't care either way.
> Silicon Valley isn't trying to fuck over Millennials. Like a paperclip maximizer, it doesn't care either way.
Exactly. People think other people are responsible and have some evil plan, while this is all Moloch's doing. Everyone follows their icentives perfectly, and the combined system drives us down to hell.
http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/
Exactly. People think other people are responsible and have some evil plan, while this is all Moloch's doing. Everyone follows their icentives perfectly, and the combined system drives us down to hell.
http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/
In fairness, CNN was only started in 1980. In its beginning, it may very well have been much more intelligent and mature. Now that the TV news business model (and cable for that matter) is much more mature, it's a race to the bottom.
> Now that the TV news business model (and cable for that matter) is much more mature, it's a race to the bottom.
It probably isn't a very original insight, but at some point not long ago I realized that every market turns into race to the bottom as it matures.
It probably isn't a very original insight, but at some point not long ago I realized that every market turns into race to the bottom as it matures.
Same kind of mechanism behind "The Moderator Problem" article, I assume.
[deleted]
So all the dunces are in confederacy against Silicon Valley?
People often forget that paying someone to do something is an expense, not a benefit.
Sure, people need jobs, but not jobs that can be done by cheaper and more effectively by machines. Employment opportunities are not a means of themselves.
This (IMO flawed) economic thinking is best captured by economist Keynes:
"If the Treasury were to fill old bottles with banknotes, bury them at suitable depths in disused coalmines which are then filled up to the surface with town rubbish, and leave it to private enterprise on well-tried principles of laissez-faire to dig the notes up again (the right to do so being obtained, of course, by tendering for leases of the note-bearing territory), there need be no more unemployment and, with the help of the repercussions, the real income of the community, and its capital wealth also, would probably become a good deal greater than it actually is. It would, indeed, be more sensible to build houses and the like; but if there are political and practical difficulties in the way of this, the above would be better than nothing." [0]
[0] Book 3, Chapter 10, Section 6 pg.129 "The General Theory.."
Sure, people need jobs, but not jobs that can be done by cheaper and more effectively by machines. Employment opportunities are not a means of themselves.
This (IMO flawed) economic thinking is best captured by economist Keynes:
"If the Treasury were to fill old bottles with banknotes, bury them at suitable depths in disused coalmines which are then filled up to the surface with town rubbish, and leave it to private enterprise on well-tried principles of laissez-faire to dig the notes up again (the right to do so being obtained, of course, by tendering for leases of the note-bearing territory), there need be no more unemployment and, with the help of the repercussions, the real income of the community, and its capital wealth also, would probably become a good deal greater than it actually is. It would, indeed, be more sensible to build houses and the like; but if there are political and practical difficulties in the way of this, the above would be better than nothing." [0]
[0] Book 3, Chapter 10, Section 6 pg.129 "The General Theory.."
The concern is about what happens to people who are no longer employable if we cannot create new jobs for them? Will everyone be happy when a majority of the population depends entirely on charity and hand outs?
Honest answer, I don't know. But I wouldn't have known what would happen to the ~30% of the US population that worked in farming 100 years ago or the 90% that were working as farmers in 1862 [0]
Jobs aren't really created by a central authority. They just kind of appear as people find better things to do with their time/talents. The future may not follow the past, but so far we've been okay.
[0] http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/trouble/timeline/
Jobs aren't really created by a central authority. They just kind of appear as people find better things to do with their time/talents. The future may not follow the past, but so far we've been okay.
[0] http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/trouble/timeline/
And they are destroyed when wall street financiers are permitted to outsource jobs.
Society can choose to allow or not allow society to be destroyed by creating a large class of underemployeed.
We are choosing a tax structure that allows jobs to be outsourced.
Society can choose to allow or not allow society to be destroyed by creating a large class of underemployeed.
We are choosing a tax structure that allows jobs to be outsourced.
They need to retitle that article "Old man yells at cloud".
The intellectual vacuum of this article can be summed up by the fact that the author chose a fictional character as his Silicon Valley CEO strawman. At least point to a real villain!
The intellectual vacuum of this article can be summed up by the fact that the author chose a fictional character as his Silicon Valley CEO strawman. At least point to a real villain!
Its so ironic that the author is a journalism professor. This article would make for a perfect Journalism 101 case study on cheap rhetorical tricks: appeal to anecdote, straw man, etc.
Reminds me of seeing Neil Postman speak oh so many years ago. I got there late, and met a friend (still a friend, he's my patent attorney now) leaving. Asked him how it was, and he was like, "Neil Postman is a cretin".
Totally anti-tech reactionary. He was railing about how word processors were going to destroy literacy, and we should all write with pencils like a Real Journalist.
Totally anti-tech reactionary. He was railing about how word processors were going to destroy literacy, and we should all write with pencils like a Real Journalist.
"We have no problem taking Wall Street executives to task for decisions that leave American families financially devastated"
Right off the bat- do we? Or do we just give them slaps on the wrist and then big bonuses once the news cycle's over?
Right off the bat- do we? Or do we just give them slaps on the wrist and then big bonuses once the news cycle's over?
By "taking them to task", he means "complain ineffectually". He can complain ineffectually about Silicon Valley just as loudly as he can complain ineffectually about Wall Street.
"Only 36% of college grads have jobs that pay at least $45,000... after adjusting for inflation"
! 45k? And here I thought my 30K job in mid 90's after college was a windfall.
! 45k? And here I thought my 30K job in mid 90's after college was a windfall.
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=30&year1=1995&y...
$30k in 1995 is around $45k now adjusted for inflation.
One important factor to remember is that the cost of education has risen a lot (even in real terms) since the 90's. A student graduating today is way more likely to carry a substantial student debt so that money just doesn't go as far as it used to once you factor in wealth.
$30k in 1995 is around $45k now adjusted for inflation.
One important factor to remember is that the cost of education has risen a lot (even in real terms) since the 90's. A student graduating today is way more likely to carry a substantial student debt so that money just doesn't go as far as it used to once you factor in wealth.
I think there is a a general feeling of entitlement today as well.
Since you mentioned it, I wonder how much the percentage of graduates that actually had to take out loans has changed.
Since you mentioned it, I wonder how much the percentage of graduates that actually had to take out loans has changed.
I don't think there is anymore entitlement than in the past. I think that is just something old people say about the next generation :)
College has increased in price so much compared to inflation. My parents paid for all their school bills while working part time, you can't even pretend to do that now.
College has increased in price so much compared to inflation. My parents paid for all their school bills while working part time, you can't even pretend to do that now.
I just remember most entry level jobs being well under 30K in the mid 90s. College degree, major city, etc.
Relevant:
Luddite (noun) : one of a group of early 19th century English workmen destroying laborsaving machinery as a protest;
From Wikipedia : The Luddites were 19th-century English textile artisans who protested against newly developed labour-replacing machinery from 1811 to 1817. The stocking frames, spinning frames and power looms introduced during the Industrial Revolution threatened to replace the artisans with less-skilled, low-wage labourers, leaving them without work.
Luddite (noun) : one of a group of early 19th century English workmen destroying laborsaving machinery as a protest;
From Wikipedia : The Luddites were 19th-century English textile artisans who protested against newly developed labour-replacing machinery from 1811 to 1817. The stocking frames, spinning frames and power looms introduced during the Industrial Revolution threatened to replace the artisans with less-skilled, low-wage labourers, leaving them without work.
Semi-correct but terribly argued.
First, Silicon Valley sucks but it's not the fault of "technology". The Valley has been successfully conquered by the mainstream business elite. They've won, we've lost. It's not our territory anymore.
The corporate elite has been wiping out jobs for generations and, to be fair, that's not always a bad thing to be doing. The crime isn't that jobs end. It's that these corporations won't pay to train people up into the new jobs that are created, dodge their taxes and therefore emasculate the government, and lobby for an economic status quo that is harmful to most people.
Second, "technology" (as a force) generates wealth but doesn't distribute it well. There are a number of reasons for that, but one is that engineers don't care enough to change the distribution of newly-created wealth from what it is. If the engineers who build technology are at fault, it's through inaction rather than malice. We'd rather be curing cancer than helping businessmen unemploy people, but when you look at the current socio-political structure of society, it's only set up to go one way on that.
First, Silicon Valley sucks but it's not the fault of "technology". The Valley has been successfully conquered by the mainstream business elite. They've won, we've lost. It's not our territory anymore.
The corporate elite has been wiping out jobs for generations and, to be fair, that's not always a bad thing to be doing. The crime isn't that jobs end. It's that these corporations won't pay to train people up into the new jobs that are created, dodge their taxes and therefore emasculate the government, and lobby for an economic status quo that is harmful to most people.
Second, "technology" (as a force) generates wealth but doesn't distribute it well. There are a number of reasons for that, but one is that engineers don't care enough to change the distribution of newly-created wealth from what it is. If the engineers who build technology are at fault, it's through inaction rather than malice. We'd rather be curing cancer than helping businessmen unemploy people, but when you look at the current socio-political structure of society, it's only set up to go one way on that.
Very well put, so what do you see serving as a force to distribute the wealth?
I think that the solution human societies will come up with is a basic income. I tend to hope for that, because lightweight government is typically better.
Well, that was a weirdly written article... I do think we need the US government to do more for Labor/People in this country. At this point Labor/People are so unrepresented in the political process they are just getting screwed left and right. Unions are a nightmare and keep a lot of bad people in jobs that shouldn't be there, but without them nobody is pushing for fair pay.
Why can't the US government pass a plan to push us slowly to a real living wage instead of a minimum wage?
Why can't we push for a $12 to $15 an hour living wage across the board and tie it to future inflation?
Not enough to be crazy, but enough that people are not stuck in a perpetual trap of poverty.
Why can't the US government pass a plan to push us slowly to a real living wage instead of a minimum wage?
Why can't we push for a $12 to $15 an hour living wage across the board and tie it to future inflation?
Not enough to be crazy, but enough that people are not stuck in a perpetual trap of poverty.
This article is written from the perspective that everyone is guaranteed a place at the table of the hyper-efficient capitalist economy when no such guarantee has ever been made.
If these kids went to college, then surely they learned how to learn, so why not adapt to the market by learning new skills that the market values more? Better than sitting on your ass waiting for the market to adapt to you.
Or join the military, file for disability, or get a second crappy job since your free time is likely spent watching netflix and playing games.
As alluded to in the article, even the low skill, low paying jobs will be going away soon so the time to act is now.
If these kids went to college, then surely they learned how to learn, so why not adapt to the market by learning new skills that the market values more? Better than sitting on your ass waiting for the market to adapt to you.
Or join the military, file for disability, or get a second crappy job since your free time is likely spent watching netflix and playing games.
As alluded to in the article, even the low skill, low paying jobs will be going away soon so the time to act is now.
When I read the URL, I was initially worried because I thought Tom Wheeler was saying this.
>As anyone who's talked to an automated system on the phone lately can attest, "automated" usually means "worse."
He does have a point there. It takes me much longer to buy my groceries using self-checkout than it does to go stand in line for a human to ring up my purchases. Using an automated phone system is similarly pretty irritating.
>As anyone who's talked to an automated system on the phone lately can attest, "automated" usually means "worse."
He does have a point there. It takes me much longer to buy my groceries using self-checkout than it does to go stand in line for a human to ring up my purchases. Using an automated phone system is similarly pretty irritating.
But why does it take longer? There are some stores where I'm just as fast to self-checkout as a human cashier, and others where it takes a ton more time, because the machine is super laggy. (Or deliberately made sluggish?)
You're literally doing the same thing as a cashier, using the same equipment - as long as you don't suck at scanning things, it should take exactly the same amount of time.
You're literally doing the same thing as a cashier, using the same equipment - as long as you don't suck at scanning things, it should take exactly the same amount of time.
The article starts with a magnificent exercise in false equivalence: "We have no problem taking Wall Street executives to task for decisions that leave American families financially devastated, yet we give Silicon Valley billionaires a pass when they do the same thing".
No, they don't do the same thing. If I automate in 5 minutes with software a process that used to take three people with pencils and erasers four months, I have not done the same thing as taking out insurance policies against bad mortgage securities that only I know are bad because I'm the one who took the good mortgages out and replaced them with bad mortgages because the fine print allowed me to do this.
Yes, both do eliminate some jobs. One because those jobs can now be done more efficiently by machines. The other, because massive amounts of wealth was destroyed by financial trickery.
It's so hard to get past that point that I almost didn't read the more sensationalistic presented but nonetheless worthy of consideration issues that followed.
Yes, social media and other internet behemoths are doing alarming things to privacy. Yes, we need to be concerned if we send millions out of work, with no clear path to employment. Yes, we should be concerned about the intense concentration of wealth in a winner-take-all economy.
All kinds of interesting ideas have been presented (minimum basic income, for instance). But you won't find any discussion of them in this article.
No, they don't do the same thing. If I automate in 5 minutes with software a process that used to take three people with pencils and erasers four months, I have not done the same thing as taking out insurance policies against bad mortgage securities that only I know are bad because I'm the one who took the good mortgages out and replaced them with bad mortgages because the fine print allowed me to do this.
Yes, both do eliminate some jobs. One because those jobs can now be done more efficiently by machines. The other, because massive amounts of wealth was destroyed by financial trickery.
It's so hard to get past that point that I almost didn't read the more sensationalistic presented but nonetheless worthy of consideration issues that followed.
Yes, social media and other internet behemoths are doing alarming things to privacy. Yes, we need to be concerned if we send millions out of work, with no clear path to employment. Yes, we should be concerned about the intense concentration of wealth in a winner-take-all economy.
All kinds of interesting ideas have been presented (minimum basic income, for instance). But you won't find any discussion of them in this article.
Yes, but if you dig a bit deeper, the wealth was created by massive amounts of financial trickery too. Most of the paper that supports the stock market is really just a fabrication of an illusion - people mostly selling virtual pieces of paper that suggests you own a right to buy and/or sell something if a hypothetical scenario ever occurs. So to say that the wealth was destroyed by financial trickery isn't the whole story... it was created by that same trickery. All the wealth you see in the real world (the big mansions, flashy cars, accumulation of stuff, that nice secure feeling you have because of all the money you have in your bank account, your ability to purchase stuff) is built upon an illusion that only exists in a virtual reality. While companies are allowed to fabricate wealth pretty much out of thin air, what can you expect?
Not that I'm disagreeing with your larger point. In comparison to Silicon Valley, Wall Street is a city of charlatans.
Not that I'm disagreeing with your larger point. In comparison to Silicon Valley, Wall Street is a city of charlatans.
I completely agree with you that when measuring losses, you have to consider the fact that much of the wealth lost never existed in the first place. There is still a tremendous amount of collateral damage, but a proper accounting is important.
I remember thinking along similar lines during the enron scandal. Evidently, employees moved all their retirement account money into Enron stock, and lost everything when the company tanked. There was an article about a couple who had lost $500,000. At the time, I do remember thinking - did they contribute $500k in principle, or was 500K the peak value of their 100% enron portfolio before it all fell apart? If it's the latter (and it probably was), then it's entirely possible that they contributed no more than 50k (perhaps even considerably less) to the account.
I remember thinking along similar lines during the enron scandal. Evidently, employees moved all their retirement account money into Enron stock, and lost everything when the company tanked. There was an article about a couple who had lost $500,000. At the time, I do remember thinking - did they contribute $500k in principle, or was 500K the peak value of their 100% enron portfolio before it all fell apart? If it's the latter (and it probably was), then it's entirely possible that they contributed no more than 50k (perhaps even considerably less) to the account.
...and that's probably the same for 90% of everyone's retirement portfolio. The "we lost everything we had" line could be as meaningless as having someone say "well, I put all my life savings in this slot machine because the guy at the casino said he'd been keeping track of it and it's been paying out over the odds for months, and at first, it seemed to be true... until I put in my last dollar and it blew up."
Not that this makes anyone feel any better about losing their life savings - but risk is risk... and betting all your life savings on something as fickle as an illusion carefully sculpted by financial giants to pad their coffers, protected by bills carefully designed by lobbyists to protect what might as well be fraud, all buoyed up by public opinion of those chasing the dream of endless wealth [which about sums up the entire financial market], is a gamble no matter how you look at it. What did we learn about gambling in school? The odds always favour the house... and unless you're the house [which you're not, because the house is the conglomerate of banks that propagate this mess], you're extremely unlikely to win.
Not that this makes anyone feel any better about losing their life savings - but risk is risk... and betting all your life savings on something as fickle as an illusion carefully sculpted by financial giants to pad their coffers, protected by bills carefully designed by lobbyists to protect what might as well be fraud, all buoyed up by public opinion of those chasing the dream of endless wealth [which about sums up the entire financial market], is a gamble no matter how you look at it. What did we learn about gambling in school? The odds always favour the house... and unless you're the house [which you're not, because the house is the conglomerate of banks that propagate this mess], you're extremely unlikely to win.
Does he raise valid points? Sure. Some tech companies are just as guilty as Walmart is of exploitative labor practices, but one can't help but take his commentary with a grain of salt, as he slams "crappy automated phone systems" he ignores all of the benefits of new technologies.