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

WTF Happened in 1971? (2019)

wtfhappenedin1971.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 477 posts

Re: WTF Happened in 1971? (2019)

#391

Post by oh_sigh »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #379
oh_sigh wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. If only select people could run the backhoe because of training, but anyone could shovel, then it would make sense that part of the productivity enhancements comes from the employee themselves. But let's just say the backhoe didn't require any special training. Should the worker capture some of the performance improvements that were derived purely from the business investing in productivity enhancements?

> But let's just say the backhoe didn't require any special training. Can you give me an example of any more-advanced and more-productive tool that does not require at least some special training?

Sure - a manual screwdriver versus an electric screwdriver.

Re: WTF Happened in 1971? (2019)

#392

Post by kbenson »

marsokod wrote: post #340
benlivengood wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=36754 claims about 5% of GDP is energy costs. It is on a mild downward trend since increasing since the 1970s. Considering that percentage is higher than margins in quite a few businesses I'd say it has a limiting effect on the economy.

Portion of cost in GDP is not equal to importance. What is the cost of water in the GDP? Much less than the cost of the energy. What would be the GDP without water? Nil. There would be no GDP because we would all be dead.

Water's cost is much less than the cost of energy because supply is high. If water was more scarce (or if water rights weren't screwy in many places), it would be much more expensive, and it definitely would be more of a limiter.

Also, you somehow equated the complete lack of a resource with a price increase. What would the effect on the GDP be without any energy? Well, we might not all be dead, but a significant portion of us might for various reasons including wars and massive world unrest because of instability. Even if you ignore all that, the economy as we know it would grind to a halt.

Re: WTF Happened in 1971? (2019)

#393

Post by ozim »

oh_sigh wrote: post #344
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the person who hires you wants foundations dug, not just to hire a fixed amount of headcount. To an employer, the worker who knows how to run a backhoe is more valuable than the person who knows how to run a shovel.

Right. If only select people could run the backhoe because of training, but anyone could shovel, then it would make sense that part of the productivity enhancements comes from the employee themselves. But let's just say the backhoe didn't require any special training. Should the worker capture some of the performance improvements that were derived purely from the business investing in productivity enhancements?

You write it at the end "improvements that were derived purely from the business investing in productivity enhancements".

Don't forget investment involves risk.

If you buy a backhoe, you might not find customers and you are left with useless backhoe and money spent, you still have to pay the wages to your employees first. Employee is not participating in any of that risk.

Re: WTF Happened in 1971? (2019)

#394

Post by tboyd47 »

crazygringo wrote: post #320
bryanlarsen wrote: post #25

The author obviously wants you to believe that it was the abandonment of the gold standard, but there are several other theories that have more credence with mainstream economists. The early 70's was the start of a horrible period of stagflation: stagnation coupled with inflation. Some do blame the loss of the gold standard, but the leading theory is the OPEC oil crisis. Others blame market regulations, the EPA was p…

According to Thomas Piketty [1], it's mainly a result of a bifurcation in education, and dramatically rising managerial compensation helped with tax cuts. I personally also think this is the main answer. In other words, all our massive productivity increases have come from people with a ton of education, and they reap all the rewards, helped with lower taxes. The median worker isn't any more educated and hasn't reape…

LOL, as if people actually learn productive skills in college.

Re: WTF Happened in 1971? (2019)

#395

Post by kjs3 »

ethbr0 wrote: post #116
backtoyoujim wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm OK with the "Move Fast & Break Shit" crowd staying far from my medical history thankyouverymuch.

You say that... but you'd be surprised how chaotically the sausage is manually made in the inner workings of health care. Provider side has it semi-sorted (at least within the same facility). Everyone else (insurance, etc) is attempting to clean semi-structured / inaccurate data passed to them, and generate a coherent result.

Spouse of a medical practice manager at a mid-sized practice here. Provider data is wildly variable in quality, to be sure. But if the insurance companies are trying to clean the data, they're not using the 'result' to make the system more efficient (except maybe for them at the expense of everyone else), because "we get bad data" gives them another reason to deny the claim. My wife and all of her peers spend inordinate amounts of their time responding to valid insurance denials, quoting chapter and verse of IDC10. Some insurers are so notorious (as in 'deny every claim up front...make them work for it hoping they'll give up') my wife drafts the response to the denial along with the initial request, because she knows it's automatically coming. This makes the automation possibilities that electronic patient management systems offer less effective, because to get paid the practitioner still has to manually intercede in way too many claims.

Another bit of collateral damage is the increasing number of providers who no longer take insurance of any kind and put the onus on the patient to file (and fight) with the insurance companies.

Re: WTF Happened in 1971? (2019)

#396

Post by yellowapple »

lutorm wrote: post #347
yellowapple wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Would we have more advanced rockets We wouldn't need rockets at all , or at least far less; we could power things like launch loops and railguns to get things into space (and then either settle for rockets to circularize or else use laser ablation or orbital tethers or other fancier systems to circularize). > or robots or phones? Better CPUs? Robots, phones, and CPUs all benefit from power being readily available.…

I don't think the fact that we don't use railguns to launch things into space is because of energy cost. It's just not technologically feasible.

From what I understand, the main technological blocker (as opposed to various political and economic blockers) is the need for superconductors to achieve reasonable energy efficiency. With cheap energy, that's less of a pressing need (and further, cheap energy = more energy to throw at cryogenic cooling systems to induce superconductivity in less-exotic materials).

Re: WTF Happened in 1971? (2019)

#397

Post by EricE »

TOGoS wrote: post #335
OliverJones wrote: post #141

Uncle Milty (Milton Friedman) published, on Sept 12, 1970, The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Its Profits. https://www.nytimes.com/1970/09/13/archives/a-friedman-doctr... This doctrine of irresponsibility was gobbled up by businesses. It gave them (us) permission to switch from the post-WW2 cooperative way of doing business to an extractive model: get the most you can from workers, suppliers, host c…

Friedman may have written them a nice excuse, but capitalists have always behaved this way. Look at the behavior of the robber barons around the turn of the 20th century for example. The question is not one of motivation, but what allowed them to get away with it? So I would like to combine your comment with the root from another thread: "Business managed to exploit a number of crises to break the power of labor unio…

"Friedman may have written them a nice excuse, but capitalists have always behaved this way"

And communist don't?

People behave this way if left unchecked. Greed is hardly something unique to capitalism.

Re: WTF Happened in 1971? (2019)

#398

Post by nxpnsv »

csomar wrote: post #382
nxpnsv wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't you a quarter of a century off on the WWII thing?

It takes a generation to create new workers. A quarter of a century before, you had men who went to war and die instead of a factory and stay alive. Now you have a new generation where men didn't need to go to war.

Perhaps. Seems to me that if that was the principal reason for the change, then the transition would be smoothed over several years.

Re: WTF Happened in 1971? (2019)

#399

Post by EricE »

djur wrote: post #31
triangleman wrote: post #9

Love the charts, then scroll to the bottom and "oh, Bitcoin". Sorry but there are other ways. Did you know that the Balanced Budget Amendment (proposal) failed by a single vote in 1995?

Yes, we narrowly averted disaster. Did you know that amendment required a supermajority to raise taxes?

A supermajority to raise taxes would be amazing - government might actually have to be accountable for dollars spent rather than just lazily going back to the trough for more taxpayer dollars.

If you don't think our current and rapidly expanding deficit is a real pending disaster...

Re: WTF Happened in 1971? (2019)

#400

Post by csomar »

nxpnsv wrote: post #398
csomar wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It takes a generation to create new workers. A quarter of a century before, you had men who went to war and die instead of a factory and stay alive. Now you have a new generation where men didn't need to go to war.

Perhaps. Seems to me that if that was the principal reason for the change, then the transition would be smoothed over several years.

It is not. It just added a bit to the effect, I'd put it as secondary or less.
Post reply on HN