Live data from Hacker News

Why isn’t new technology making us more productive?

nytimes.com

51–60 of 603 posts

Re: Why isn’t new technology making us more productive?

#51

I have a hard time believing this thesis that modern technology doesn't help productivity. Think about CRM software. Could you imagine having to go through hundreds of filing cabinets and massive systems just to get information about a customer? What about 100 SDRs doing this at the same time, every day? How about trying to meet with someone on the other side of the country? Or having to hire hundreds of assembly lin…

It sounds plausible: all the benefits have gone to the rich. So, I set out to see what a world would be like if we "redistributed" all those "benefits". So, simply take the entire wealth of every billionaire in the US and divide it by the number of citizens and number of years required to acquire that wealth. It's a relatively simply equation: Billionaire wealth / Citizens / 30 Years = Yearly Redistribution 4T / 300…

Stole is pretty loaded language. Also where are you pulling the number 30 from? Seems arbitrary to me. 500 per year for every man women and child for 30 years is a lot of money. That would be equivalent to a one time payment of $60,000 dollars to every family of 4. Sounds like a lot of money to me.

Re: Why isn’t new technology making us more productive?

#52

I have a hard time believing this thesis that modern technology doesn't help productivity. Think about CRM software. Could you imagine having to go through hundreds of filing cabinets and massive systems just to get information about a customer? What about 100 SDRs doing this at the same time, every day? How about trying to meet with someone on the other side of the country? Or having to hire hundreds of assembly lin…

Lost me at the bit about fud from rich people. I really doubt there is a conspiracy.

Re: Why isn’t new technology making us more productive?

#53
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure how they're measuring productivity. From my own experience as a software developer, I've seen how software makes individuals more productive. But the end result of this productivity is not 2x as much output overall but 0.5x as many people to achieve the same level of productivity. We're decreasing costs but maybe the market doesn't need 2x or 5x more productivity. There just isn't that kind of demand any…

"Productivity" means "amount of input required to get a given output." I think you might be thinking of "productivity" as a synonym for "output". Usually in economics the input is labor hours, but for example "energy intensity" is the productivity of how much energy a process uses. In the macroeconomic case it's GDP divided by total energy used, but some industries are more energy intensive than others -- they have l…

> "Productivity" means "amount of input required to get a given output." I think you might be thinking of "productivity" as a synonym for "output".

Okay but surely we're only talking about average productivity with some assumptions on the approximate employment rate and hours worked per week. No one is going to be impressed by a "5% increase in productivity" next year if unemployment rises to 99%, the 1% of remaining workers only work 10 hours per week, but the average hour yields 5% higher output than the previous year.

Re: Why isn’t new technology making us more productive?

#54

It is, it also gives us more downtime during the workday that isn't reflected in the numbers.

I'm not sure this is true. There are accounts of incredible waste and normalized, office-wide work-dodging-while-pretending-to-work in the earliest years of the post-war white-collar office. They read like they could have been written yesterday, with a few of the details changed.

It could be that as more people moved into white-collar work, though, the fraction of the population experiencing and participating in that kind of thing has gone up.

Re: Why isn’t new technology making us more productive?

#55

Capability != Productivity Increasing capability means we can do more with less. So we choose to use less resources.

Then why is my attendence still required for 8 hours a day, in a field where working 4-6 hours would not significantly decrease my overall productivity, but increase my well-being and capability to build something on my own.

The limiting factor for productivity in the knowledge economy (or any work requiring creativity) hasn't been time for a while, why do we insist on keeping it where it has been since the tail end of the industrial revolution (or slightly earlier / later, depending on where you are).

Re: Why isn’t new technology making us more productive?

#56
post #36

I have a hard time believing this thesis that modern technology doesn't help productivity. Think about CRM software. Could you imagine having to go through hundreds of filing cabinets and massive systems just to get information about a customer? What about 100 SDRs doing this at the same time, every day? How about trying to meet with someone on the other side of the country? Or having to hire hundreds of assembly lin…

The gap between the richest and the poorest is probably the largest ever, but today people are also living far more comfortably than ever: electricity, heated water, food and water at a press of a button, generally good transportation to pretty much everywhere. What is lacking, for the less privileged, is mostly lack of access to affordable housing and a bad diet (arguably this is mostly due to the enticing nature of…

I believe it needs to also be said that bad diet is a side effect of everyone trying to produce with cheaper and cheaper materials. I shudder to think what kinds of ingredients are some of the foods I see in cheaper shops made from.

This is not sustainable. It cannot last for that much longer IMO. Literally and metaphorically, people are getting sick of it. They notice. They are not dumb. They might be in denial (people just LOVE their chips and cola for some reason) but they are not dumb.

I see more and more people in my neighborhood going to the local market and negotiating with vendors coming straight from agrarian villages for a "monthly subscription" of sorts -- you bring me one huge basket with fruits and veggies every weekend, I pay you, say, $200 a month. The vendor gets a stable income, you get actual bio food and don't have to pick and choose every tomato and parsley leaf every damn time. The vendors have a vested interest not to cheat their most stable and profitable customers.

Sadly all these societal changes are glacially slow, giving the opportunists plenty of breathing room to swindle people and get rich for decades but oh well, until we develop collective consciousness it seems that this won't ever change... :|

Re: Why isn’t new technology making us more productive?

#57

I have a hard time believing this thesis that modern technology doesn't help productivity. Think about CRM software. Could you imagine having to go through hundreds of filing cabinets and massive systems just to get information about a customer? What about 100 SDRs doing this at the same time, every day? How about trying to meet with someone on the other side of the country? Or having to hire hundreds of assembly lin…

It sounds plausible: all the benefits have gone to the rich. So, I set out to see what a world would be like if we "redistributed" all those "benefits". So, simply take the entire wealth of every billionaire in the US and divide it by the number of citizens and number of years required to acquire that wealth. It's a relatively simply equation: Billionaire wealth / Citizens / 30 Years = Yearly Redistribution 4T / 300…

>I have a different theorey. The US and other developed countries have been loosing ever greater amounts of wealth. Wealth per capita has decreased dramatically over the last 50 years. The causes are too numerous to go into, but there are MANY.

I find this hypothesis very intriguing. I too have found it troubling that the narrative against billionaires doesn't quite seem to line up with the envelope math. That said, I wonder about the optimal parameters of the inevitable pareto distribution of wealth. I think the effect on money velocity and total wealth generation among other things is worth considering. In history, it does seem generally like conditions have been good when inequality is relatively low. (At least within a window of time next to that time.)

However, I'm really hoping you could elaborate more on what you're calling an apparent loss of wealth since I'm very much curious.

What information is that conclusion based on?

Without delving into a description that is TOO laborious, could you give a 100,000ft summary or list of things you think that have contributed to that or where you think the wealth has gone?

Re: Why isn’t new technology making us more productive?

#58
post #23

Because nobody wants to make themselves or their friends obsolete. In fact, technical debt is a feature, not a bug. Invent a highly functional, durable tool: nobody will buy anything related to it from you again.

Generally, this seems to be rather asyncronous in large companies / "enterprises". I've seen entire departments that are not doing anything relevant. In less severe cases, there are still mostly a few people that do a lot of work, and many that are doing very little. Sort of like the pareto principle of productivity.

Re: Why isn’t new technology making us more productive?

#59

I have a hard time believing this thesis that modern technology doesn't help productivity. Think about CRM software. Could you imagine having to go through hundreds of filing cabinets and massive systems just to get information about a customer? What about 100 SDRs doing this at the same time, every day? How about trying to meet with someone on the other side of the country? Or having to hire hundreds of assembly lin…

It sounds plausible: all the benefits have gone to the rich. So, I set out to see what a world would be like if we "redistributed" all those "benefits". So, simply take the entire wealth of every billionaire in the US and divide it by the number of citizens and number of years required to acquire that wealth. It's a relatively simply equation: Billionaire wealth / Citizens / 30 Years = Yearly Redistribution 4T / 300…

Both can be true:

a.) A tiny number of billionaires have reorganized society in ways that cause benefits to accrue to themselves.

b.) The net size of those benefits, distributed equally over all people, is tiny.

All this means is that people are being used in absurdly inefficient ways, because that benefits whoever is in charge.

For example, plantations are arguably like this. They are less productive, per acre, than smallholdings. But they scale: A single owner can make the plantation arbitrarily large. "Who cares if the country grows half as much per acre as it could, if I get to control 10x the acres? That's still 5x the wealth for me!"

Surely we in software, home of the Mythical Man Month, know all about this? It doesn't matter if the microserfs are less productive, if you can have all of them to yourself.

Re: Why isn’t new technology making us more productive?

#60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds plausible: all the benefits have gone to the rich. So, I set out to see what a world would be like if we "redistributed" all those "benefits". So, simply take the entire wealth of every billionaire in the US and divide it by the number of citizens and number of years required to acquire that wealth. It's a relatively simply equation: Billionaire wealth / Citizens / 30 Years = Yearly Redistribution 4T / 300…

>The US and other developed countries have been loosing ever greater amounts of wealth. Wealth per capita has decreased dramatically over the last 50 years. The causes are too numerous to go into, but there are MANY. Don't leave us hanging throw8383833jj, where did the wealth go?

The biggest drop in wealth is Shelter and Medical. 50 years ago land was much cheaper. A 300K house (non-land cost) costs 310K (maybe 10k for the land). Whereas today, in states where much job creation happens (i won't name names), a 300K house costs 600K or more. You could say, the previous land owner made all that money and it's true. But, it's just a one time wealth transfer from the latest generation to previous generations of land owners. The problem is, going forward from here, there are no more winners in this game. By, charging vast amounts of money for land that should cost very little, we're simply depriving human being of wealth. Even CA, has more acres than people and yet, even in the country side where there is miles of empty land in every direction, we see houses huddled together, a mere few feet apart like some kind of nazi concentration camp. going forward, this is a game with no winners. the wealth is simply denied. conversely, by denying ourselves this wealth, we can create the wealth out of thin air by allowing the land to be developed OR simply by moving jobs (where jobs go, people follow) to areas where there is sufficient developable land (politically achievable).

Also, there's a huge laundry list of regulation, and zoning that impact numerous industries like housing and transportation that make these things more expensive than they need to be and pass those costs onto consumers.

Just for comparison, i once, calculated that in my area, it takes roughly 80,000 man hours to afford the cheapest house in my suburban neighborhood in the bay area. And yet, in thailand (Jon Jai a humble farmer with no education and no construction training and youtuber), has demonstrated that he could build a modest home with just 200 man hours! He'll tell you, that despite the fact that he lives in country where economists say his per capita income is more than 20 tiems lower than US, he's easily able to afford a house, 1 acre of land and enough food for his family of six and only works 15 min a day (2 months full time out of the year). too much to explain here, but you can visit his channel on youtube for details. I was blown away. and of course, he has the freedom to do so, because less regulations and zoning to get in the way. Sure, he doesn't have many gadgets or cars and even a rice cooker would be hard to acquire but he has the essentials of life: shelter, food and water in abundance: and that's what freedom is largely about.

Post reply on HN