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

Can too many brainy people be a dangerous thing?

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 292 posts

Re: Can too many brainy people be a dangerous thing?

#281

Post by jl2718 »

JamesBarney wrote: post #140
reader_mode wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean isn't it the same with developers ? If you're competent you have offers left and right and can command a very good salary. If you're out of a diploma mill with just the curriculum under your belt you're basically useless.

I don't think it is. I don't know any developers who have left the profession because of a lack of employability. But I know plenty of lawyers who have. And a law degree is probably more comparable to a masters in CS than a bootcamp like flatiron.

There are legions of them. Layoff over 50 is a career-ender in software. Lawyers are just warming up at that point.

Re: Can too many brainy people be a dangerous thing?

#282

Post by jl2718 »

leetcrew wrote: post #103
jmeister wrote: post #10

Turchin uses the term “elites”, which is not the same as “brainy”. Genuinely “brainy” people can find new ways to contribute to society, there can never be too any of them. “Elites” on the other hand - highly credentialed and entitled - play zero-sum games. There’s a lot of interesting critique written by heterodox leftists today, in the spirit of Chris Lasch, on how the current progressive movement is just intra-eli…

> Genuinely “brainy” people can find new ways to contribute to society, there can never be too any of them. "brainy" people can only contribute more than their non-brainy counterparts when they can leverage meaningful amounts of resources. a really clever person working a register in mcdonalds is not a whole lot more productive than a barely competent employee. even if they have some brilliant idea to streamline thin…

A smart person automates everything they do. Put them in front of a register for a year and they’ll end up improving it as a side project. What I’ve noticed in my lifetime is that smart people in regular jobs have become more and more rare, and this kind of organic innovation has stopped. Innovation now generally comes from outside of any business.

Re: Can too many brainy people be a dangerous thing?

#283

Post by ramblerman »

jl2718 wrote: post #281
JamesBarney wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it is. I don't know any developers who have left the profession because of a lack of employability. But I know plenty of lawyers who have. And a law degree is probably more comparable to a masters in CS than a bootcamp like flatiron.

There are legions of them. Layoff over 50 is a career-ender in software. Lawyers are just warming up at that point.

Legions huh? Do you have something to back up that claim.

It's often stated - and worried about, but whenever a thread comes up about devs over 50, we mainly see counterexamples.

Re: Can too many brainy people be a dangerous thing?

#284

Post by ramblerman »

raziel2701 wrote: post #238
krisroadruck wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$2M is not a starter home. The national median home price is $230K. It's only that high because 4-5 states are dragging it up. Keep in mind that is the median. There are homes that can be had for less. Nice homes. Buying a house in one of the most expensive markets in the entire nation (SF, NYC) as your first home is a choice, and perhaps not a particularly wise one. Where I live in, in Charlotte, NC a $1-2 million h…

His point still stands though, we are doing things to maximize money because we are hugely indebted from students loans, rent, and medical bills. Scott Galloway mentioned in a podcast how he went to business school and paid $1000 in tuition and got a job after graduation that paid $100k. That's a 100:1 ratio that you can't find today. Today that same business school charges $70k and you get a job that pays $140k, tha…

> He also talked about how he was able to buy into amazon stocks when it was $60.

Lol, there are a lot of stocks now at 60 you could buy that may turn out to be big winners. What kind of argument is that?

Re: Can too many brainy people be a dangerous thing?

#285

Post by Shorel »

elindbe2 wrote: post #164
lwneal wrote: post #20

In Peter Turchin's book War and Peace and War [1], the term "elite overproduction" does not refer to an overproduction of smart people, education, or college degrees. Instead, it refers to an overproduction of nobility , individuals who extract income but who do not perform useful work. For example, France during the population boom of the high middle ages overproduced knights and minor nobles from 1200-1300. The nob…

"The most straightforward modern equivalent to Turchin's "elite" nobility would not be people with advanced degrees" I disagree here. The closest equivalent would be people in academia, specifically the portions of academia that don't perform useful work. Basically, the "X studies" crowd. And that's exactly where we see the most political instability coming from these days.

And I deeply disagree with you.

If we are looking for people who earn lots of money for no real tangible work, the people who work in tax exempt churches and congregations are much higher in that list than people in academia.

All modern prophets, pastors, speakers, con artists and so on. People in academia don't buy a new SUV every year, while these talkers do.

And right now, with the Covid crisis, we need the work of the academics. Not the whatever they do in the talkers group.

Re: Can too many brainy people be a dangerous thing?

#286

Post by Kalium »

jahaja wrote: post #250
Kalium wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's fascinating! Is there anything I could read about this? I would love to hear more about a rich first-world country being able to meet literally everyone's housing needs fully and in a timely manner without using a market economy.

This is a good start: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Million_Programme

Reading the description there, it seems to rest heavily on profit motives. Perhaps I have missed something?

I would love an example of housing for everyone in locations that meets their needs, achieved in a timely manner, in a way that removes profit and investment motives.

Re: Can too many brainy people be a dangerous thing?

#287

Post by jahaja »

Kalium wrote: post #286
jahaja wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a good start: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Million_Programme

Reading the description there, it seems to rest heavily on profit motives. Perhaps I have missed something? I would love an example of housing for everyone in locations that meets their needs, achieved in a timely manner, in a way that removes profit and investment motives.

> it seems to rest heavily on profit motives

What part are you referring to?

> I would love an example of housing for everyone in locations that meets their needs, achieved in a timely manner, in a way that removes profit and investment motives.

Well, on the other hand, is there something inherent in housing that requires those motives?

Re: Can too many brainy people be a dangerous thing?

#288

Post by Kalium »

jahaja wrote: post #287
Kalium wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reading the description there, it seems to rest heavily on profit motives. Perhaps I have missed something? I would love an example of housing for everyone in locations that meets their needs, achieved in a timely manner, in a way that removes profit and investment motives.

> it seems to rest heavily on profit motives What part are you referring to? > I would love an example of housing for everyone in locations that meets their needs, achieved in a timely manner, in a way that removes profit and investment motives. Well, on the other hand, is there something inherent in housing that requires those motives?

> What part are you referring to?

A lot of the program seems to have rested on subsidies and incentives, which are nice ways of saying you're relying on a profit or investment motive.

> Well, on the other hand, is there something inherent in housing that requires those motives?

Aside from that it requires scarce resources to produce and maintain and is rival in nature? I suppose not. Though that does put it in the company of quite a few other goods and services.

Re: Can too many brainy people be a dangerous thing?

#289

Post by jahaja »

Kalium wrote: post #288
jahaja wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it seems to rest heavily on profit motives What part are you referring to? > I would love an example of housing for everyone in locations that meets their needs, achieved in a timely manner, in a way that removes profit and investment motives. Well, on the other hand, is there something inherent in housing that requires those motives?

> What part are you referring to? A lot of the program seems to have rested on subsidies and incentives, which are nice ways of saying you're relying on a profit or investment motive. > Well, on the other hand, is there something inherent in housing that requires those motives? Aside from that it requires scarce resources to produce and maintain and is rival in nature? I suppose not. Though that does put it in the co…

> A lot of the program seems to have rested on subsidies and incentives, which are nice ways of saying you're relying on a profit or investment motive.

I mean that's just an implementation issue. To scale fast at that time, the government paid already existing corporations to build but kept ownership of the completed buildings. The point is that it's still a state venture and the profit motive/investment, "free market", was essentially suspended. So without this kind of government program the market, because of profit/risk/investment motives, won't build this.

Re: Can too many brainy people be a dangerous thing?

#290

Post by jl2718 »

ramblerman wrote: post #283
jl2718 wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are legions of them. Layoff over 50 is a career-ender in software. Lawyers are just warming up at that point.

Legions huh? Do you have something to back up that claim. It's often stated - and worried about, but whenever a thread comes up about devs over 50, we mainly see counterexamples.

Everybody I worked with when I was 16. They were then my age now. I know where this goes.
Post reply on HN