Live data from Hacker News

Andy Grove’s Warning to Silicon Valley

nytimes.com

71–80 of 266 posts

Re: Andy Grove’s Warning to Silicon Valley

#71
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The advertising industrial complex is paradoxically what employers are willing to pay for, but we humans don't need.

Honestly explain this to me: in what sense do we not need advertising? I don't want to research the 200 brands of almond milk or 85 sushi restaurants in my neighborhood -- I want some proxy, however imperfect, for their quality, availability and value. I want someone to come find me and tell me that their milk or restaurant or whatever exists. And as someone who sells things, how am I supposed to make the public awar…

Most people realize that when you have 200 competing brands of Almond Milk, 199/200 times they are not telling the truth. There is no value in believing what advertising says.

Re: Andy Grove’s Warning to Silicon Valley

#72
post #28

> "There was room for improvement, he argued, for what he called “job-centric” economics and politics. In a job-centric system, job creation would be the nation’s No. 1 objective, with the government setting priorities and arraying the forces necessary to achieve the goal, and with businesses operating not only in their immediate profit interest but also in the interests of “employees, and employees yet to be hired.”…

I think there is a significant confluence among those who find prosperity and purpose through jobs to conflate the concepts of employment and purpose. That to not have a job is to not have a purpose, and vice versa. If we had a planned economy built around peak employment, we would have many fewer entrepreneurs and many more, as you say, hole diggers. Socially we already do that. We have created a gargantuan advertis…

Wow! Fantastic comment that I woefully can only upvote once. This is why I come to HN, for thinking like this.

That said, I think you are totally wrong about this. Just look at surnames: Baker, Smith, Shoemaker, etc. The actual names of people and their families were completely centered around their employment, or more generally, what it was they did all day long. Yes, this was medieval Europe, and conditionals abound, but the same is true in many other cultures too. The surnames of Mehta or Poddar in India relate to accountants.

More generally, you mention that people needing to do something for someone else is not what humans should do. I think this is totally false. Maybe not just 1 person/baron/emperor, but I certainly think people want to be useful to other people in their community. Ok, yes, this is a gaussian curve here, like so many other things, but I would like to think that at 1 std south people still want to help others as a natural condition for mankind.

However, I do agree with you and Adam Smith that people should be mostly doing 'nothing' all day. Most of the work to feed and house people in 1st world countries is 'done.' We can easily give out the bare essentials for life, the issue is distribution, as is claimed by Minimum income folks. Though I agree with you in a mechanical sort of way, that is not the issues. The issue is emotions. Giving people free stuff is not 'fair' for most folk. And that emotional issue of fairness, something I think drives a lot of the reasons behind laws and politics, is the elephant in the room. The question quickly come out of 'why should I work if she gets free stuff all the same?' Do not underestimate the ability for people to 'game the system' either for simply the want to appear more well off than their noisy neighbors. Keeping up on the Jones's is why you see so many new iPhones in very poor areas.

Overall, I think people exist on the bell-curve between selflessness and selfishness. Most folk are 1 std north or south of the average. The real questions are where is that mean relative to Jesus and the Devil and how wide is that std relative to that?

Note: Also, time and again we are told that the standard of living here in the US is far too high for the whole planet to be able to live like us. Nearly all scientists worth listening to say that climate change is real and we have to do something about it. Weather we like it or not, the average living condition here in the US must fall to a level our planet can sustain. Possibly we are seeing this in action already.

Re: Andy Grove’s Warning to Silicon Valley

#73
The lump of labor fallacy is a pervasive one

Despite all the hype over outsourcing, the number of Silicon Valley jobs is close to the 2000 highs

http://www.spur.org/sites/default/files/wysiwyg/u168/Screen%...

Silcon Valley job growth has pretty much tracked the rest of the nation https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8e/US_Labor_Forc...

Job creation and destruction is an inescapable part of a dynamic economy.

Re: Andy Grove’s Warning to Silicon Valley

#74

> "There was room for improvement, he argued, for what he called “job-centric” economics and politics. In a job-centric system, job creation would be the nation’s No. 1 objective, with the government setting priorities and arraying the forces necessary to achieve the goal, and with businesses operating not only in their immediate profit interest but also in the interests of “employees, and employees yet to be hired.”…

You are invoking the famous, often-misunderstood fiscal policy outlined by Keynes. Here is the often-paraphrased text from The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money Book 3 Ch.10 Section VI [1]: "Pyramid-building, earthquakes, even wars may serve to increase wealth, if the education of our statesmen on the principles of the classical economics stands in the way of anything better...If the Treasury were to…

I don't think a 1940s economist would recognize our 5% number as real. By "reforming" welfare in the 90s, we dumped millions on the disability rolls and our of the workforce permanently.

Re: Andy Grove’s Warning to Silicon Valley

#75

> "There was room for improvement, he argued, for what he called “job-centric” economics and politics. In a job-centric system, job creation would be the nation’s No. 1 objective, with the government setting priorities and arraying the forces necessary to achieve the goal, and with businesses operating not only in their immediate profit interest but also in the interests of “employees, and employees yet to be hired.”…

>In principle the war effort is always so planned as to eat up any surplus that might exist after meeting the bare needs of the population. In practice the needs of the population are always underestimated, with the result being that there is a chronic shortage of half the necessities of life; but this is looked upon as an advantage. It is deliberate policy to keep even the favored groups somewhere near the brink of hardship, because a general state of scarcity increases the importance of small privileges and thus magnifies the distinction between one group and another. War, it will be seen, not only accomplishes the necessary destruction, but accomplishes it in a psychologically acceptable way. In principle it would be quite simple to waste the surplus labour of the world by building temples and pyramids, by digging holes and filling them up again, or even by producing vast quantities of goods and then setting fire to them. But this would provide only the economic and not the emotional basis for a hierarchical society.

-G. Orwell

Re: Andy Grove’s Warning to Silicon Valley

#76

> "There was room for improvement, he argued, for what he called “job-centric” economics and politics. In a job-centric system, job creation would be the nation’s No. 1 objective, with the government setting priorities and arraying the forces necessary to achieve the goal, and with businesses operating not only in their immediate profit interest but also in the interests of “employees, and employees yet to be hired.”…

Given the absolutely embarrassing state of our country, hole diggers are exactly what we need. Legitimately go pay someone to dig holes all day and lay single-mode fiber to every home. Pay them to turn a wrench replacing support brackets on a bridge.

The Works program was the single most successful employer in this country's history and we replaced it with welfare because "unemployment is low and we don't need it anymore". Stupidity. The US is a prime example of exactly how a government focused on job creation can be a raving success!

Re: Andy Grove’s Warning to Silicon Valley

#78
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there is a significant confluence among those who find prosperity and purpose through jobs to conflate the concepts of employment and purpose. That to not have a job is to not have a purpose, and vice versa. If we had a planned economy built around peak employment, we would have many fewer entrepreneurs and many more, as you say, hole diggers. Socially we already do that. We have created a gargantuan advertis…

> We have created a gargantuan advertising industry that has zero net material gain for society Why do people say this, when they know full well that advertising drives people to buy things, and therefore, drive the economy?

Because an economy driven mainly by consumerism is not sustainable in the long run. Such an economy requires unchecked growth and this falls apart once society starts consuming for the sake of consumption.

Re: Andy Grove’s Warning to Silicon Valley

#79
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there is a significant confluence among those who find prosperity and purpose through jobs to conflate the concepts of employment and purpose. That to not have a job is to not have a purpose, and vice versa. If we had a planned economy built around peak employment, we would have many fewer entrepreneurs and many more, as you say, hole diggers. Socially we already do that. We have created a gargantuan advertis…

> We have created a gargantuan advertising industry that has zero net material gain for society Why do people say this, when they know full well that advertising drives people to buy things, and therefore, drive the economy?

Because it doesn't.

These people wouldn't just hoard their money because there is no ad telling them what to buy...

They'd just be exercising their own agency, rather then cokes, or nikes.

Re: Andy Grove’s Warning to Silicon Valley

#80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We have created a gargantuan advertising industry that has zero net material gain for society Why do people say this, when they know full well that advertising drives people to buy things, and therefore, drive the economy?

Because an economy driven mainly by consumerism is not sustainable in the long run. Such an economy requires unchecked growth and this falls apart once society starts consuming for the sake of consumption.

The entire global economy since the beginning of time is about consuming.

What makes you think it would fall apart at all?

Post reply on HN