What if jobs are not the solution but the problem? • Hacker News Board

Re: What if jobs are not the solution but the problem?

#531

Post by asdfasdfa11112 » Sun, Nov 27, 2016, 6:43 PM UTC

morgante wrote: post #500

throwaway368 wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly the kind of moronic bs that I haven't and will not put up with. Executives most of the time are paid, and compensated to be there 24/7. Software engineers are not. While founders and other execs have tendency to forget that - deal with it. I am there between 8am - 4pm, or 6am - 2pm or what ever it says in my contract. No more, no less. You want me to do extra hours, fine, most of the time happy to, yo…

Do you consider six-figure salaries "not paying for it?" I have no doubt that if I wanted to work a strict 9-5 schedule I could easily do that as a developer. There are plenty of big companies which have a punch-in/punch-out system. They also pay less than market. On the other hand, if I'm making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year then I think it's pretty damn reasonable for me to work longer hours and to be ava…

I don't think the fact that developers make hundreds of thousands of dollars means they have to put in more work.

They are being paid to create a certain amount of value, and capture what is generally a small fraction of it.

How does your logic scale? If a dev making $200k per annum has to put in 10 hours a day, does an executive making $600k per annum have to put in 30 hours per day?

Re: What if jobs are not the solution but the problem?

#532

Post by asdfasdfa11112 » Sun, Nov 27, 2016, 6:44 PM UTC

smileysteve wrote: post #347

taeric wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are constantly having a situation where you need them to answer a question as late as 4:50 on a regular basis, you've already failed. I seriously mean that. Movies and revisionist history are full of companies that successfully pulled out last minute victories. Real life is full of companies that kept that death march until the end, and blamed the workers for not keeping up.

Steve Jobs killed Apple (Lisa, Macintosh, Apple2) and NEXT with the death marches; yet he is renowned because he did it better the last time.

I'd love to read more about this, without all the general Jobs fluff. Any recommendations?

Re: What if jobs are not the solution but the problem?

#533

Post by asdfasdfa11112 » Sun, Nov 27, 2016, 6:45 PM UTC

freehunter wrote: post #278

vacri wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you serious? Knowledge workers have it easy . It's hard to get here, but once we're here it's a great gig. We're paid well, we're in demand, and there's a robust freelancing sector to our industries, be it software, legal, medical, engineering, or whatever. That link describes a call center worker as a knowledge worker. That's absolute nonsense. You could, in theory, argue that a call center worker is about manag…

Actually the more specialized you get, the harder it becomes. Think of all the mainframe guys who saw that technology disappear before they retired. Either they were independently learning a new skill by themselves so they could move from Senior Mainframe Developer to Junior Frontend Rockstar (with the appropriate pay cut), or they're now unskilled workers at McDonalds.

I dunno, my aunt still makes a good living programming for the AS-400, as she has done for multiple decades.

Re: What if jobs are not the solution but the problem?

#534

Post by morgante » Sun, Nov 27, 2016, 6:52 PM UTC

asdfasdfa11112 wrote: post #531

morgante wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you consider six-figure salaries "not paying for it?" I have no doubt that if I wanted to work a strict 9-5 schedule I could easily do that as a developer. There are plenty of big companies which have a punch-in/punch-out system. They also pay less than market. On the other hand, if I'm making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year then I think it's pretty damn reasonable for me to work longer hours and to be ava…

I don't think the fact that developers make hundreds of thousands of dollars means they have to put in more work. They are being paid to create a certain amount of value, and capture what is generally a small fraction of it. How does your logic scale? If a dev making $200k per annum has to put in 10 hours a day, does an executive making $600k per annum have to put in 30 hours per day?

It's not that making more money inherently means you have to work more, it's that if you're making a lot of money it's ridiculous to complain about the hours.

Developers are not a subjugated underclass. If you really only want to work 40 hours a week, there are tons of employers who will happily hire you as a developer (at a lower salary).

There's no reason you should be entitled to both a high salary and a short working week.

Re: What if jobs are not the solution but the problem?

#535

Post by asdfasdfa11112 » Sun, Nov 27, 2016, 6:57 PM UTC

freehunter wrote: post #511

adwn wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A toilet cleaning robot would have a spinning brush like a drill and would circle the bowl of the toilet a couple of times. But that robot can't refill its consumables, it can't mop up the floor, and it can't deal with the mess after your semi-demented grandpa missed half the bowl. This solution is useful for a large rest stop with a dozen toilettes and thousands of customers per day (and employees that do the abov…

But now you're getting into scope creep. What was asked for was a robot that could clean toilets, or a robot that could make a sandwich.

Wasn't the original discussion about robots replacing human labor? A single human can do those things.

I think it's another discussion whether we can make robots who each do one thing well. Roomba, etc.

Besides the space constraints with multiple robots, I think it's clear there are significant advantages in having just 1 entity that can perform all the required cleaning tasks. Much like single-purpose hardware has given way (mostly) to software, except in areas with interesting requirements (GPu etc.)

Re: What if jobs are not the solution but the problem?

#536

Post by asdfasdfa11112 » Sun, Nov 27, 2016, 7:00 PM UTC

Animats wrote: post #507

edblarney wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ya. Whenever anyone talks about 'the singularity' (i.e. computer consciousness) I usually respond with "get your bot to make me a goddam ham sandwich and clean my toilet!" - then we can talk! But let's avoid calling people 'retarded', eh :)

Ham sandwich. That would be Item #130001 from Integrated Food Services.[1] "Today IFS and their affiliates own and operate a state-of-the-art facility which includes two USDA processing plants, a wholesale bakery and a dry warehouse which total over 100,000 square feet on five acres. We are located in the greater Los Angeles area, almost equidistant from downtown, LAX and the Port of Los Angeles." Most of the prepack…

Interesting point, I hadn't realized there were manufacturing/assembly lines for food. Makes sense.

Do you think it's likely we'll see robots making high quality goods like this, or will they always be commoditized and (my opinion) fully disgusting?

Robots clearly do well with mechanical items like cars. There doesn't seem to be any immediate reasons they can't make an artisan sandwich. Maybe it's a limitation of ingredient spoilage / exposure to air during the process?

Curious what you think -- will robots making food continue to be McDonalds level, or will we have good food coming from machines?

Re: What if jobs are not the solution but the problem?

#537

Post by asdfasdfa11112 » Sun, Nov 27, 2016, 7:05 PM UTC

morgante wrote: post #534

asdfasdfa11112 wrote: post #531

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the fact that developers make hundreds of thousands of dollars means they have to put in more work. They are being paid to create a certain amount of value, and capture what is generally a small fraction of it. How does your logic scale? If a dev making $200k per annum has to put in 10 hours a day, does an executive making $600k per annum have to put in 30 hours per day?

It's not that making more money inherently means you have to work more, it's that if you're making a lot of money it's ridiculous to complain about the hours. Developers are not a subjugated underclass. If you really only want to work 40 hours a week, there are tons of employers who will happily hire you as a developer (at a lower salary). There's no reason you should be entitled to both a high salary and a short wor…

But now you're making a subjective statement about the pay. Without context (supply, demand, how much revenue you generate for your employer), how to determine what is highly paid?

I fully reject the idea that more hours should be a requirement for good pay.

Further, as a startup founder myself, I don't want my employees working much more than a 40 hour week. I have found* I prefer the work produced by someone with work-life balance, than someone who works all the time.

* subjective sampling of colleagues/coworkers/direct reports/hires.

Re: What if jobs are not the solution but the problem?

#538

Post by morgante » Sun, Nov 27, 2016, 7:12 PM UTC

asdfasdfa11112 wrote: post #537

morgante wrote: post #534

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that making more money inherently means you have to work more, it's that if you're making a lot of money it's ridiculous to complain about the hours. Developers are not a subjugated underclass. If you really only want to work 40 hours a week, there are tons of employers who will happily hire you as a developer (at a lower salary). There's no reason you should be entitled to both a high salary and a short wor…

But now you're making a subjective statement about the pay. Without context (supply, demand, how much revenue you generate for your employer), how to determine what is highly paid? I fully reject the idea that more hours should be a requirement for good pay. Further, as a startup founder myself, I don't want my employees working much more than a 40 hour week. I have found* I prefer the work produced by someone with w…

No, I'm making an objective statement.

If you are being paid more than the median American, and have options which would still pay more than the median while working less, then complaining about being overworked is ridiculous. There are simple solutions of just getting a different job.

If you don't want people working more, by all means manage your company that way. The market will decide if its an effective strategy.

Re: What if jobs are not the solution but the problem?

#539

Post by eli_gottlieb » Sun, Nov 27, 2016, 7:23 PM UTC

nhaehnle wrote: post #475

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anxiety over your material needs is a psychological affliction. These aren't such different things.

That's a bit of a cop-out, isn't it, because you're only talking about psychological needs which are inextricably linked with material needs, and there was never any argument about the fact that UBI does solve those. If that's really the best you can come up with, I think it's safe to say that UBI doesn't offer any solutions for human worth or psychological needs. (I also partially get it; solving material needs is e…

>And it's funny, I never see UBI supporters propose actual solutions for those. It's always just hand-waving, like they are prepared to give lip-service to the issue, but they're not really interested in solving it. It's self-serving politics by an elite who already has all the frameworks for solving their own psychological needs, as long as the material ones are satisfied. At least you have to give the full employment/Job Guarantee folks credit for actually trying to come up with something.

I guess I don't give so much credit because I'm a weirdo who doesn't get a lot of his psychological self-worth from his work. Yes, work can be interesting and engaging sometimes. So can any number of other things in my life, none of which pay me wages.

I also don't think that assembly-line jobs ever actually provided for people's psychological needs. That's part of why the '60s and '70s had so much wildcat worker militancy: people found that while they were glad to have their material needs met, they had absolute psychological needs beyond what their jobs could ever meet. So to turn it around: I think that "jobs for everyone" is likewise the self-serving politics of an elite who already gain far more life-satisfaction from their professional work than the masses ever will from manufacturing or services.

>For what it's worth, it's not like those things are in conflict anyway. UBI and full employment are complementary policies, they don't contradict each other.

Very true, and we should probably support both.

Re: What if jobs are not the solution but the problem?

#540

Post by PeterisP » Sun, Nov 27, 2016, 8:02 PM UTC

dpweb wrote: post #459

djKianoosh wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this would be lovely, but it's utopian. uber drivers drive someone to a place, and if they dont they dont get paid. the sorts of jobs you're talking about arent always all so clearly verified/verifiable. you'd need other government workers just to verify that the job was done properly... ufff I can see the waste now

Drones verify the leaves were raked etc..

It's just as hard or possibly even simpler to just make drones that pick up litter and robots that rake leaves.

The problem with large scale low skilled jobs (e.g. fast food) becoming automated is that these jobs aren't really special as jobs, even if they have a very important socioeconomic role in our society - it's not yet cost effective to automate them, but when it will, then at the same time (roughly speaking, +/- 10 years) all other low skilled jobs will be ripe for automation as well.

A good semi-trailer truck driver will have his job for years to come, but when it does happen, then all the reasonable jobs to which he could currently shift would have their own downsizing due to their own automation and an excessive supply potential workers of poor ex-drivers who were shed years before the good driver.