Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Silicon Valley Is Not Driving Jobs Growth

fortune.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 129 posts

Re: Silicon Valley Is Not Driving Jobs Growth

#111

Post by chongli »

evanpw wrote: post #108
chongli wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not my ethical system. My original point is that the distinction between positive and negative rights is irrelevant. Throughout this whole discussion I've seen examples by different people which seem to bear that out.

I think "irrelevant" goes too far, but I concede that the border is fuzzier than I previously thought.

Even the most simple, basic, negative right to not be killed flies out the window if you just kill somebody and then ask the question "now what?" Well, without positive rights, the answer is "not much".

These terms have plenty of meaning in the abstract but no direct real world applicability. Their main use seems to be rhetorical: specifically by ideologues who support the status quo while denying a status quo bias.

Re: Silicon Valley Is Not Driving Jobs Growth

#112

Post by specialist »

jondubois wrote: post #75
jjoonathan wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our current economic system holds that people don't deserve food, shelter, medical care, or dignity if they don't have a job. If you believe that we should stick with the current system then the proposition "everyone should have a job" follows from "everyone should have food, shelter, medical care, and dignity".

Yes, I think that's why inequality is getting worse. The system is broken - It's a winner-takes-it-all system. Even though the person who came second place delivered as much value (if not more) for society (in terms of innovation), the winner might end up with millions but the second place might get nothing at all. I think society puts too much focus on capturing value and not enough on creating value. Innovation is…

Yes, I think that's why inequality is getting worse.

Inequity is the result of math. The rich get richer. Without progressive income redistribution, increasing inequity is inevitable.

This is why game shows have bonus rounds, mooting the first 1/2, so that people continue watching.

Further, creation of the middle class is a deliberate, explicit policy decision. Not the natural outcome of Freedom Markets (tm). The USA has previously chosen to nurture a middle class on three separate occasions. We're overdue for a 4th restructuring, say by 20 years.

Wealth and Democracy: A Political History of the American Rich

http://www.amazon.com/Wealth-Democracy-Political-History-Ame...

Re: Silicon Valley Is Not Driving Jobs Growth

#113

Post by specialist »

stickfigure wrote: post #78
jjoonathan wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our current economic system holds that people don't deserve food, shelter, medical care, or dignity if they don't have a job. If you believe that we should stick with the current system then the proposition "everyone should have a job" follows from "everyone should have food, shelter, medical care, and dignity".

You had me right up until 'dignity'. You can't give someone dignity.

"Human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away."

-- Judge Clarence Thomas

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Re: Silicon Valley Is Not Driving Jobs Growth

#114

Post by specialist »

dragonwriter wrote: post #81
bko wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well that's a disagreement between positive and negative rights: > A negative right is a right not to be subjected to an action of another person or group; negative rights permit or oblige inaction. A positive right is a right to be subjected to an action or another person or group; positive rights permit or oblige action. You may believe in positive rights, like I have a right to food, shelter, etc. Others may belie…

> You may believe in positive rights, like I have a right to food, shelter, etc. Others may believe in only negative rights, like I have the right to not provide you food, shelter etc. It's funny how so much of political debate can boil down to this fairly simple idea. The distinction between positive rights and negative rights is a lot less clear than is often presented. Sure, the right to food, shelter, etc. is fra…

Word.

You remind me of some career advice I got as a kid:

"All negatives can be stated as a positive."

Re: Silicon Valley Is Not Driving Jobs Growth

#115

Post by specialist »

SilasX wrote: post #36
augustocallejas wrote: post #3

Here's a though experiment I came up with several years ago: Say one day you created a copy of the Earth and with that copy, it had the same population as the current Earth, and they were connected so you can travel between them easily. I can see that these two worlds would need twice as many barbers as the current world. Would these two new worlds need twice as many Google/Facebook/etc. employees?

The same basic logic explains the folly of reducing unemployment by demand stimulus and the "consumers are the real job creators" mentality. If producing twice as many widgets requires (at least) twice as many workers, you're doing something wrong.

Juicing consumption when the economy is a measure of consumption has a certain logic.

Re: Silicon Valley Is Not Driving Jobs Growth

#116

Post by SilasX »

specialist wrote: post #115
SilasX wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same basic logic explains the folly of reducing unemployment by demand stimulus and the "consumers are the real job creators" mentality. If producing twice as many widgets requires (at least) twice as many workers, you're doing something wrong.

Juicing consumption when the economy is a measure of consumption has a certain logic.

Sure, as much logic as there is in defining everything to be a nail to make your hammer seem more useful.

When we worry about the economy, we're worried about a lot more than present consumption, or else we could just eat the seed corn and call it a day.

Re: Silicon Valley Is Not Driving Jobs Growth

#117

Post by specialist »

rattray wrote: post #31

This article doesn't actually seem to provide any evidence to support its claim - the actual factoid at the heart of the article is that Total Factor Productivity (TFP) has fallen since the 90's, which is irrelevant. The only pieces of evidence supporting the "No Jobs Growth" claim are Facebook's employee count from _2013_ (which has since grown by almost 50% to 12000 [0]), and the claim that "in 2010, only 0.5% of t…

I thought this was common knowledge. (But I admit I don't understand the OP's rationale.)

How Job Destroyers and Coffee Drinkers Rule The World

L2 Inc., May 14, 2015

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0D62IX-Vd9g

"Another big loser: the American worker. While tech companies try to maintain their status as job creators, the facts show another story. For example, it takes six people at Facebook, eight people at Google, and 60 to 70 people at an ad agency like Publicis to generate $10 million in revenue."

Re: Silicon Valley Is Not Driving Jobs Growth

#118

Post by specialist »

SilasX wrote: post #116
specialist wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Juicing consumption when the economy is a measure of consumption has a certain logic.

Sure, as much logic as there is in defining everything to be a nail to make your hammer seem more useful. When we worry about the economy, we're worried about a lot more than present consumption, or else we could just eat the seed corn and call it a day.

So an economy based on consumption is not sustainable?

Re: Silicon Valley Is Not Driving Jobs Growth

#119

Post by knieveltech »

codyb wrote: post #92
knieveltech wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you? This is a ludicrous hypothetical in response to a very simple question: do you or do you not believe all people have a right to the basics of survival and some element of dignity?

I, personally, would like to think, given a nonthreatening human being being discovered in my home, that I would help said person. I was arrested once, way too fucked up, in someones car. They eventually lended me sandals because I had no shoes or socks. I am, of course, far more understanding of those in ridiculous situations, having been in many myself. I've calmed down a lot, but unless someone is threatening to k…

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

Re: Silicon Valley Is Not Driving Jobs Growth

#120

Post by refurb »

beatpanda wrote: post #80
refurb wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh, at least in the US, over 50% of the federal budget provides just those things to people that don't have jobs.

No, it doesn't. https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-bud... Large parts of those segments representing health care and social security represent money that is paid out to people who are working -- that is, it's a direct subsidy to employers who don't feel like paying their workers enough to cover their grocery and housing bills.

Medicare (21%) - healthcare for retired people who don't work Medicaid (21%) - healthcare for low income, including people who don't work "safety net programs" (9%) - for the unemployed or disabled

I get 51% from that.

Post reply on HN