The real crime is that these very smart data-entry clerks don't quit for programming jobs that pay double.
Coders Automating Their Own Job
321–330 of 499 posts
Re: Coders Automating Their Own Job
#322You know how sometimes you love an article so much that you are annoyed you didn't write it? This does a better job than I could have of tieing together a dozen threads of conversation that I've had with various friends for years. I actually believe that there's a culture war implied in this debate; the question of who deserves to reap the gains of automation is more than just philosophy or ethics. The question "is t…
One thing I find fascinating about the article is that it's assumed the cleverness was the code written to automate. This is incorrect; the cleverness is in noticing when a task can be automated. Typically, the code itself is trivial. I have told my work more than once that if they wanted to get the most out of me they should put me on the "front line" for a month or two, and let me decide what needs to be automated.…
If your work is "laughing off" your suggestions and putting you down I'd seriously consider finding a better employer.
Re: Coders Automating Their Own Job
#323A question for the people that have a positive attitude towards keeping time savings for yourself instead of passing them on to your employer. Would you be also okay with the following situation: You have someone remodell your garden. He comes up with an estimate of 1 week worth of full-time work for two people. Based on your experience this seems reasonable and you agree on a fixed price of 10000$. Two scenarios of…
- Commissioning a script to automate something is expensive, plus you need to find the talent who can automate it and do a reasonable good job of it. It's sometimes a risky investment. - If ready-made robots (and scripts) were available on the market, the employer would definitely use that instead
Yes, to make the analogy better, say the gardener invented the robot while on your "gardening time".
Edit: Writing a script might be expensive, but is the market price of this script really a lifetime of data-entry salary? Seems unlikely, or we would not see as much automation.
Re: Coders Automating Their Own Job
#324This article really highlights how odd our methods of valuing output are. Ultimately if someone is idling for 6 years because they've written a program to do their job for them, who cares? They are delivering the same output which hopefully the company deemed was valued at X amount BECAUSE it delivers Y amount of profit/returns. This article is actually touching on a deeper level of dysfunction in how we do things li…
Why did you ask just for a 3X increase instead of 12-20X? If you don't value what you did, why should your employer? Also, why should an employer raise your salary based on the fact you are automating stuff? It's part of your job, after all. That's what programming is about.
The essence of this question is worth talking about.
To clarify something first, this was not a programming job. I was managing a team of content uploaders for an e-commerce company. I used software in multiple ways to keep the team at the same size when my original brief was to simplify the process so much that they could hire more people at cheap rates to do the work. So I went above and beyond the brief. The job was so simple they didn't need to hire anyone anyway.
The question of why 3X is to do with alignment of interests. I can't offer savings of 20X and ask for that to be added to my salary. Yes I'm creating that value, but we also want to increase profits. If I ask for all the savings, then what makes my solution worth it? Calculating our business margins at the time I came to the conclusion of 15% of the savings to come to me to be worth it given the extra business our team was able to handle due to the automation.
Lesson here is how to calculate your ask. My team unit with 20 extra people meant the new work being brought in would be coming in with no profit. The team (without extras) was just breaking even at the time by my calculations. The profits made by automating to accept new business at an accelerated rate was above our usual margins (I think it was about 45%). My ask lowered it but it was still above the company's expected margins on business.
My mistake though was that the automation was nearly infinitely scalable. I showed my entire hand and me leaving wouldn't necessarily burn anyone. 6 years since I left, at least two of the tools are still running. Twas a great lesson on negotiation and leverage. Live and learn :)
Re: Coders Automating Their Own Job
#325This article really highlights how odd our methods of valuing output are. Ultimately if someone is idling for 6 years because they've written a program to do their job for them, who cares? They are delivering the same output which hopefully the company deemed was valued at X amount BECAUSE it delivers Y amount of profit/returns. This article is actually touching on a deeper level of dysfunction in how we do things li…
> They are delivering the same output which hopefully the company deemed was valued at X amount BECAUSE it delivers Y amount of profit/returns.
The output is actually even better in my experience. I know in the tasks that we've automated the output is always 100% consistent, which is more than can be said for the previous human output.
Also there's a lot of value in having someone on hand who actually understands the process rather than blindly trusting in a script. They'll more than pay for themselves when it comes to future enhancements or debugging.
And I say all of this as an employer - my employees are positively encouraged to automate as much as possible.
Re: Coders Automating Their Own Job
#326Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd bet many employees would be happy to work an hour or two per week. I'd be few employers would be happy to have employees work that little. It's not just a fear of being fired. It's a fear of the managerial mindset of "if they can do more each week, they aren't being challenged enough."
That is a larger societal question, though - how long should you be able to live off work you do? Is it fair for a worker to work for a few weeks, automating a job that used to be paid year after year, and then earn that money forever? Obviously there is a balance - a company shouldn't get ALL that savings (although in the long run, that savings would need to be passed on to customers, since competitors will also be…
Society already accepts that though. Look at copyright or patent law, if you tried to do away with it you'll have protests in the streets, regardless of the societal benefits to tearing down those rent-seeking laws
Re: Coders Automating Their Own Job
#327A question for the people that have a positive attitude towards keeping time savings for yourself instead of passing them on to your employer. Would you be also okay with the following situation: You have someone remodell your garden. He comes up with an estimate of 1 week worth of full-time work for two people. Based on your experience this seems reasonable and you agree on a fixed price of 10000$. Two scenarios of…
I would be sad that it seems they didn't feel they could trust me, but if they did the job well and for a good price why wouldn't I hire them again? Also, they're not my employee. I contracted them for a one time job. Totally different working relationship.
You say you would feel "sad". To be honest, I would feel cheated. And to set up this smokescreen with pseudo-gardening people (or prerecorded data entry screencaptures to stay with the article) is outright fraught, IMHO.
Re: Coders Automating Their Own Job
#328You know how sometimes you love an article so much that you are annoyed you didn't write it? This does a better job than I could have of tieing together a dozen threads of conversation that I've had with various friends for years. I actually believe that there's a culture war implied in this debate; the question of who deserves to reap the gains of automation is more than just philosophy or ethics. The question "is t…
One thing I find fascinating about the article is that it's assumed the cleverness was the code written to automate. This is incorrect; the cleverness is in noticing when a task can be automated. Typically, the code itself is trivial. I have told my work more than once that if they wanted to get the most out of me they should put me on the "front line" for a month or two, and let me decide what needs to be automated.…
>It has always been laughed off as me being cute.
Perhaps people are worried you'll automate them straight to a layoff?
Re: Coders Automating Their Own Job
#329Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this doesn't quite get it. Will "hard work" lead to success? No, not exactly. I don't think anyone believes that. A prisoner in a work camp works hard. Hard work combined with personal agency leads to success. Are you responsible for yourself? That is, are you taking responsibility for yourself? If so, you will find a way to make yourself successful. If you are looking for someone else to take responsibility…
I think the quote "The harder I work the luckier I get." applies here. Hard work results in being able to take advantage of more opportunities. But you still have to have those opportunities. I think this is a case where people confuse correlation and causation. Hard work correlates with success, but it doesn't cause success.
It depends on what you work hard on, as you say in your other comment. You can work very hard on things that never advance you in life (many people do!) or you can work less hard on things that lead to opportunities and advancement.
> Hard work correlates with success, but it doesn't cause success.
Absolutely, that's a key part, I think.
Re: Coders Automating Their Own Job
#330Earlier quoted context omitted.
I propose an alternative lens: What if "luck" was actually just an individual's ability to perceive an opportunity... intersected with their own feeling that they have permission to act upon it?
I bought a lottery ticket, and I have permission to win, yet I didn't. I suspect luck is, in fact, simply the event of uncertainities crystallising favourably (or unfavourably if the luck is "bad"). Like it says in the dictionary.
Yes, to me luck is exactly that: the impact/outcome of uncertain or unpredictable circumstances. If they work out positively, then we say it was good luck, if negatively, then we say its bad luck. So luck is just a name for something that happens to us that we feel we didn't have any control over.
Which is also why many people believe we make our own luck: because in many situations that people attribute to luck, we can influence the outcome, consciously or otherwise.