The diminishing returns of productivity culture (2021) • Hacker News Board

Re: The diminishing returns of productivity culture (2021)

#151

Post by JohnBooty » Sat, May 07, 2022, 2:51 PM UTC

Aeolun wrote: post #58

civilized wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of that is self-imposed and unnecessary.

Don’t think so. These things are par for the course if your dev team is several hundred people and -above all- focused on keeping things running exactly as they were before. Communication and waiting becomes 90% of your job.

I agree. However, I would sincerely love to be wrong about this, and would sincerely love to hear counterexamples from folks who work on large engineering teams that have somehow not devolved into lots of non-productive stuff.

The engineer side of my brain says that yes, of course it's possible. You could run a very tight engineering ship with just the right level of autonomy between a number of exactly-right-sized teams. You would employ some percentage of your engineers to ensure that the other engineers were maximally productive. Etc. This stuff is all extremely possible in a vacuum.

The pragmatic side of my brain says that, while technically possible, any organization that has grown to include a medium-to-large engineering team has almost surely done so in ways that preclude the sort of "ideal" engineering environment mentioned above.

The typical failure mode here is, of course, a company that manages to defy the odds and experiences success, but takes on a large amount of technical debt during their early days of manic growth and then spends the next N years dealing with it.

Re: The diminishing returns of productivity culture (2021)

#152

Post by testcase_delta » Sat, May 07, 2022, 2:55 PM UTC

goodpoint wrote: post #115

caffeine wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As Elon, by virtue of his massive wealth now, is depriving an ungodly amount of people of financial resources and opportunities. That doesn’t make any sense at all. His wealth isn’t made up of financial resources and opportunities that other people could have used - his wealth is the price that other people would be willing to pay him to own shares in the companies he created. I think it’s a common misconception ou…

On the contrary, wealth is mutually exclusive by definition. Regardless if it's cash, stocks, land or a pile of cans of food - if I have a piece of it you don't have the same piece. So yes "by virtue of his massive wealth now, is depriving an ungodly amount of people of financial resources and opportunities" is exactly how wealth works.

I don’t disagree with your point, but I think it doesn’t take the following in to account: Wealth is not a fixed sum. The global GDP increases over time, which I interpret has new wealth being created. If Elon hadn’t created his businesses, his wealth wouldn’t be in the hands of other people, it just wouldn’t exist.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/world-gdp-over-the-last-t...

I also assume that over 1 or 2 generations that his wealth will mostly circulate around.

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on this.

Re: The diminishing returns of productivity culture (2021)

#153

Post by jseban » Sat, May 07, 2022, 3:30 PM UTC

pm90 wrote: post #2

I don’t find anything wrong with being addicted to getting things done if the productivity gains are shared amongst the labor force. Specifically, increase in productivity can be used to eg shorten the workweek even further and demand protections against work encroachment on personal life. I see that this is happening with some companies embracing 4 day workweeks, others adopting remote from anywhere etc. We need to…

> Specifically, increase in productivity can be used to eg shorten the workweek even further and demand protections against work encroachment on personal life. I see that this is happening with some companies embracing 4 day workweeks, others adopting remote from anywhere etc. We need to accelerate this trend, possibly enshrine them in labor law.

Yes can we please just get this done already, it would solve a whole heap of issues. I think it's almost comical how it's brewing under the surface but no political party wants to touch it, seems like it would be a pretty sure way of winning the next election, what's the hold up

Re: The diminishing returns of productivity culture (2021)

#154

Post by jseban » Sat, May 07, 2022, 3:34 PM UTC

hn_version_0023 wrote: post #128

jerojero wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think they ever thought they could "get away with it forever", it's more like: we have an opportunity to make a lot of money now before people get sick of it and legislation is pushed. That's how big businesses operate, they will always push the line because it is most profitable in the short term. The long term for them is made up of ups and downs on an upwards curve, they push the line (up) get pushed down…

Greediness is a flaw. Acquiring more than you need or deserve is at the root of what’s wrong with this world, our societies, etc. Greed is a vice: it’s depraved and immoral. If you’re religious, it’s a venial sin! If greed becomes too commonplace in a persons life, it could even become a mortal sin. My point is this: greed is a flaw , and not a small one. To frame it otherwise speaks to exactly the type of corruption…

But isn't greed a reflection of the asymmetrical reproduction system that serves for natural selection as evolution of the species?

Re: The diminishing returns of productivity culture (2021)

#155

Post by jseban » Sat, May 07, 2022, 3:50 PM UTC

noduerme wrote: post #60

>> We have to collectively reject the engine of endless growth, and the aspiration for infinite productivity, before it breaks us all. Or, y'know, not be so fragile. My generation, GenX, didn't get to where we are as semi-successful slackers by whining, we did it by actually just arranging our own gigs and either accepting or rejecting the abuse of the capitalist system on a case-by-case basis. Appealing to the colle…

> Nothing in this piece suggests a replacement for the drive to work, or the virtues of working and earning. Nothing in it contemplates what a society without those virtues might look like or what meaningful thing would replace the continuity of work in peoples' lives.

Yeah and nothing acknowledges that this "dehumanising" exploitation also happens to be the source of all the nice things that we want and need, or admit that we will have to make sacrifices, and where and how these sacrifices should be made.

Always throwing out the bathwater and just pretending that there is no baby.

The hard thing about any political change is that change will always worsen things for some people, in some situations, there is no such thing as 100% positive change.

And getting those people on board to actually make the sacrifices is the actual challenge, and in this case the author could at least bother to suggest how he/she would be willing to sacrifice to make up for these productivity losses, and/or how society will cut back on the rewards.

I think we should keep the efficiency and use tech to its fullest potential, but just shorten the working hours, as a means to share the productivity gains.

Re: The diminishing returns of productivity culture (2021)

#156

Post by hn_version_0023 » Sat, May 07, 2022, 4:31 PM UTC

jseban wrote: post #154

hn_version_0023 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Greediness is a flaw. Acquiring more than you need or deserve is at the root of what’s wrong with this world, our societies, etc. Greed is a vice: it’s depraved and immoral. If you’re religious, it’s a venial sin! If greed becomes too commonplace in a persons life, it could even become a mortal sin. My point is this: greed is a flaw , and not a small one. To frame it otherwise speaks to exactly the type of corruption…

But isn't greed a reflection of the asymmetrical reproduction system that serves for natural selection as evolution of the species?

Does the reflection of a natural process excuse behavior that’s wrong? Do we simply throw up our hands and say “boy nature sure is a bitch, a shame we’re powerless to do anything about it?”

No, I think not. Rising above our base nature is a task all humans should engage in. I’ll admit it seems that the ideals of Enlightenment are dying out, but surely we must fight against that with every ounce of our will, lest we descend back into another dark age?

Re: The diminishing returns of productivity culture (2021)

#157

Post by jseban » Sat, May 07, 2022, 5:04 PM UTC

hn_version_0023 wrote: post #156

jseban wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But isn't greed a reflection of the asymmetrical reproduction system that serves for natural selection as evolution of the species?

Does the reflection of a natural process excuse behavior that’s wrong? Do we simply throw up our hands and say “boy nature sure is a bitch, a shame we’re powerless to do anything about it?” No, I think not. Rising above our base nature is a task all humans should engage in. I’ll admit it seems that the ideals of Enlightenment are dying out, but surely we must fight against that with every ounce of our will, lest we d…

I agree with you here in general, and I think this is part of the definition of civilisation. But I still think the way it's phrased in the parent is wrong, that it's a "flaw" and "what's wrong with society", if it's actually a function of nature.

I think it's still important to acknowledge what is part of our nature, and even if we can improve on that, it probably doesn't work to go too much against it, or deny it.

Re: The diminishing returns of productivity culture (2021)

#158

Post by ibeckermayer » Sat, May 07, 2022, 5:44 PM UTC

kqr wrote: post #100

caffeine wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As Elon, by virtue of his massive wealth now, is depriving an ungodly amount of people of financial resources and opportunities. That doesn’t make any sense at all. His wealth isn’t made up of financial resources and opportunities that other people could have used - his wealth is the price that other people would be willing to pay him to own shares in the companies he created. I think it’s a common misconception ou…

> His wealth isn’t made up of financial resources and opportunities that other people could have used This is literally how profit works. You make sure your costs (salaries you pay your workers) are less than the value they produce. In other words, you keep some of the financial resources and opportunities that others could have had.

> In other words, you keep some of the financial resources and opportunities that others could have had.

Those workers needed to be organized in such a manner that the value they produce is actually worthwhile and their productive output sustainable over a long period of time.

Think about the example of a production line worker in a Tesla factory -- is that individual worker being paid less than the overall value they produce for the company? Hopefully, or else Tesla will soon be going out of business (simplified obviously, but I think you'll see my point). Now consider if Tesla failed to profit off of their workers, and the factory did go out of business. Does that line worker now have more financial resources and opportunities than they would have had, which you claim were being in a sense taken from them by Musk?

Of course not! Instead, they're just out of a job entirely, because their productive output on that production line is worthless if the rest of the line isn't working (and the rest of the company isn't functioning). And chances are, that line worker doesn't have the vision, drive, knowledge, skills, etc. of Musk to get the Tesla factory up to being something economically sustainable and productive all on his own. That's not a knock on the production line worker, it's just a simple fact that such a feat is insanely difficult, and very few people have the characteristics, judgement, and luck to build anything of the sort.

So in the case of Tesla profiting off the worker, the worker gets some financial resources and opportunities, whereas in the case that Tesla fails to profit off the worker, the worker gets zero financial resources and opportunities (plus the world gets zero Teslas, battery tech improvements, etc). In the ideal, free enterprise truly is a positive sum endeavor.

Re: The diminishing returns of productivity culture (2021)

#159

Post by hn_version_0023 » Sat, May 07, 2022, 6:52 PM UTC

jseban wrote: post #157

hn_version_0023 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does the reflection of a natural process excuse behavior that’s wrong? Do we simply throw up our hands and say “boy nature sure is a bitch, a shame we’re powerless to do anything about it?” No, I think not. Rising above our base nature is a task all humans should engage in. I’ll admit it seems that the ideals of Enlightenment are dying out, but surely we must fight against that with every ounce of our will, lest we d…

I agree with you here in general, and I think this is part of the definition of civilisation. But I still think the way it's phrased in the parent is wrong, that it's a "flaw" and "what's wrong with society", if it's actually a function of nature. I think it's still important to acknowledge what is part of our nature, and even if we can improve on that, it probably doesn't work to go too much against it, or deny it.

I suppose it’s worth noting that my phrasing was a direct response to “greediness isn’t a flaw of the system, it’s a core value”

I do think it’s a flaw. Its an overreach to say it’s the singular cause of all the worlds problems, but boy does it seem like it sometimes!

Now I’m left wondering something I’m sure philosophers have grappled with better than I can: can a creature’s inherent nature be wrong? Are right and wrong even applicable to nature? Seems like it’s more that it just is and we can only apply our morality after the fact.

I guess that means I take your point :)

Re: The diminishing returns of productivity culture (2021)

#160

Post by goodpoint » Sat, May 07, 2022, 6:57 PM UTC

testcase_delta wrote: post #152

goodpoint wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the contrary, wealth is mutually exclusive by definition. Regardless if it's cash, stocks, land or a pile of cans of food - if I have a piece of it you don't have the same piece. So yes "by virtue of his massive wealth now, is depriving an ungodly amount of people of financial resources and opportunities" is exactly how wealth works.

I don’t disagree with your point, but I think it doesn’t take the following in to account: Wealth is not a fixed sum. The global GDP increases over time, which I interpret has new wealth being created. If Elon hadn’t created his businesses, his wealth wouldn’t be in the hands of other people, it just wouldn’t exist. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/world-gdp-over-the-last-t... I also assume that over 1 or 2 generat…

It's very well understood that making a product can create surplus value. This is basic economics. Contrarily to simply robbing someone else, which would be 0-sum (if not negative).

However if the product is being sold you are still taking someone's money. If you wanted to purely increase wealth for everybody you would be giving away the product for free. Many no-profits do that. (duh)

Yet, the tradeoffs are complex and some economic activities are purely exploitative.

In fact, inequality is rising across various societies and quality of life is actually decreasing for hundreds of millions.

Wealth redistribution through taxes has been a cornerstone of modern society and one of the biggest push to move societies out of feudalism. And now we are witnessing something described as technofeudalism.

> If Elon hadn’t created his businesses, his wealth wouldn’t be in the hands of other people, it just wouldn’t exist.

Either Musk made cars entirely by himself (which is not the case) or his employees did it. You are assuming that such workers would have all been unemployed if Musk did not exist, which is very unlikely.

Also, it's false that ALL of Musk's wealth would not exist. Only the fraction due to value created by the company (if any). [And I repeat, the products are obviously created by the workers]

An interesting question would be: if company X never existed, could the workers be doing something more beneficial instead? Plenty of organization has been described as a net negative for humanity.

And this is without accounting for negative externalities, e.g. causing pollution, or making another company go bankrupt, regulatory capture, creation of monopolies and the list is pretty long.

> The global GDP increases over time, which I interpret has new wealth being created

That's incorrect. Part of GDP is due to production of products and services, but a significant part is due to speculation that is not backed by any increase in productivity.

Additionally, GDP is in no way able to measure overall real wealth, quality of life, access to opportunities and so on: not destroying the environment does not increase GDP. As much as going for a walk with your SO does not increase GDP.

> I also assume that over 1 or 2 generations that his wealth will mostly circulate around.

This is provably false.