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

The rise of the pointless job

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

491–499 of 499 posts

Re: The rise of the pointless job

#491

Post by jkkg2828 »

iriNjfk993 wrote: post #490
SnowingXIV wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I might be missing a lot of what you're saying, but say I worked for FAAMG - they just pay a lot more than what my neighbor could pay me. Even if repairing the neighbors deck or planting new trees in their yard or whatever might be "better" for society than submitting code for review on some feature. I guess I'm trying to understand what you're getting at because I think a lot of people don't believe Bezos or Koch ar…

That’s the pragmatic acquiescence that makes them “special”. I don’t mean to suggest people literally consider them special in thought (though there are folks that do believe wealthy folks are divine). But an objective view, minus culture bias, of economic activity would show a lot of activity swirling into Bezos’s bank accounts What are Bezos ideas? Selling books online. Today that seems rather quaint, so yeah it wa…

Can we really say we agree with the way the rules are written?

Re: The rise of the pointless job

#492

Post by lkbm »

mrfusion wrote: post #276
foamflower wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The opposite is true. At some point in the past, elevator operators served a useful function, since elevators were hard to operate. Today, even the existence of automation (i.e. accessible elevator UI) has not completely driven the elevator operator extinct, but has transmuted his job into bullshit. Same goes for gas pump improvements (I suppose we can thank New Jersey and until recently Oregon). The entire "Flunkies…

Why until recently for Oregon?

Until a few months ago, it was illegal to pump your own gas in Oregon--they had to have an attendant at every station to do it for you. They recently made it optional, at least for rural stations.

Re: The rise of the pointless job

#493

Post by jopsen »

dizzystar wrote: post #342
jopsen wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US you often see people holding a sign saying "slow" next to construction or road work. This is a job that could literally be automated with a pole :)

You'd be surprised. Cars will burn a sign, but they'll stop dead when they see a person holding a sign. You also have to watch for the pedestrians walking around and so on. It's actually a lot more involved than you think. I did it a few times. Not hard, but it does matter a lot, and definitely not pointless.

I can't help but ask, how about a wax sculpture? hehe :)

But, yeah you have a point.

Re: The rise of the pointless job

#495

Post by randomdata »

learc83 wrote: post #479
randomdata wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1. CEO pay at public companies is public, so they feel the need to keep up with other companies. That's just basic supply and demand. Since pay is public, people know how much the other party will balk at, affecting the supply. > 2. The incestuous relationship between CEOs and the boards of directors that set their pay. That's just basic supply and demand. Like I said, the people who have that kind of relationship…

CEO pay isn't "basic supply and demand" unless you generalize the concept to such an extent that it becomes worthless. Board Member: "Why are you paying your brother $500k to be your assistant?. Surely an assistant shouldn't make that much money." CEO: "I really want my brother to do it, and since I only have 1 brother it's just basic supply and demand." You can basically frame any human interaction in terms of suppl…

> unless you generalize the concept to such an extent that it becomes worthless.

Worthless in what way? Supply and demand is far easier to write than this long-winded explanation I have ended up giving to explain what it means. That seems well worthwhile, at least when in company who understand the meaning of the term. It is not like it is some grand unified theory of economics, if that is what you were hoping for.

> You can basically frame any human interaction in terms of supply and demand

Absolutely. All interaction has some cost, and supply and demand observes the willingness of all parties to accept that cost. That is exactly what supply and demand is all about.

> And it's certainly not what most of us have in mind when we talk about "basic supply and demand"

What is it that most of you have in mind? Supply, by definition, is the quantity of a product available at any price. Demand, by definition, is the desire and willingness to pay a price. Supply and demand is simply the observation of both and how they interact with each other. I am honestly unsure of what else you could think it means?

Re: The rise of the pointless job

#496

Post by randomdata »

ItsMe000001 wrote: post #474
randomdata wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You cannot even tell what "supply" even is It’s pretty easy to figure out. Typically there will be exactly one person the board is willing to trust. It doesn’t matter how they reached that conclusion. Being the only person in the world deemed suitable for the task gives incredible leverage when demand is near infinite. > You misuse economic theory by simply using it to make unsubstantiatable claims It would appear…

> We’re talking about basic supply and demand I refer to what was written above. The only "thinking" I can see on your side is how to prolong a non-argument - you just throw out random stuff, going for quantity and endless repetition, but there is not a coherent recognizable thought. Nice try, but I'd say after your first reply it turned into trolling. You are pretty good at saying a lot without saying anything at al…

If you don't understand my explanation you are welcome to ask questions. I also encourage you to refer to other sources on the internet that go into more detail that I ever could in a short comment. You don't have to assume someone is a troll just because a comment isn't perfectly eloquent.

Re: The rise of the pointless job

#497

Post by rotub »

modbait wrote: post #95
expensivedrone wrote: post #80

I'm a programmer working at a big-tech company. I make ~$350k/year, even though my job could be done equally well by a college intern. I only do ~2 hours of productive work in an average day. My previous jobs were far more interesting and challenging, and I had apparently done extremely well in my interviews. Hence why I got an offer with an extremely good compensation package. However, the team that I go put into, i…

Through my long career, I've notice virtually no correlation between my pay and the utility of my position. And indeed, I've had one or two jobs like yours. Sadly for my bank book, I can only stand being useless for relatively short stretches. I still reminisce about my lowest paying job, my first. It was probably the most enjoyable and satisfying. It was also useful, though perhaps not at the top of that list. It's…

That's a hell of a lot of $.

I was on $100K for doing a similar amount of depressingly simple or "easy" work, while being surrounded by people who felt or at least appeared stuck.

It seems like a dream but I also got really demotivated and my sharp skills quickly became stale and then one day I realised I didn't care enough to upskill again.

The job became more about appearance and saying the right things, showing your face in the right meetings, and claiming recognition for other people's work.

I've now shelved that career. The money wasn't worth the feeling of guilt or missing out. I think the hardest part was knowing I was getting paid double than people who worked 3X harder.

Re: The rise of the pointless job

#498

Post by rotub »

expensivedrone wrote: post #80

I'm a programmer working at a big-tech company. I make ~$350k/year, even though my job could be done equally well by a college intern. I only do ~2 hours of productive work in an average day. My previous jobs were far more interesting and challenging, and I had apparently done extremely well in my interviews. Hence why I got an offer with an extremely good compensation package. However, the team that I go put into, i…

That's a hell of a lot of $.

I was on $100K for doing a similar amount of depressingly simple or "easy" work, while being surrounded by people who felt or at least appeared stuck.

It seems like a dream but I also got really demotivated and my sharp skills quickly became stale and then one day I realised I didn't care enough to upskill again.

The job became more about appearance and saying the right things, showing your face in the right meetings, and claiming recognition for other people's work.

I've now shelved that career. The money wasn't worth the feeling of guilt or missing out. I think the hardest part was knowing I was getting paid double than people who worked 3X harder.

Re: The rise of the pointless job

#499

Post by jpetso »

kleiba wrote: post #369
ouid wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those signs say stop on the other side and are used in conjuction with someone on the other end of the construction holding up the opposite sign so that a single lane can be used to handle traffic in two directions. That job would need to be automated with a traffic light.

In Germany, no-one is holding stop/slow signs at any construction site. This job is universally done by portable traffic lights.

In Germany, people respect traffic lights even when there's no one there to enforce your good behavior.
Post reply on HN