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

Why isn’t new technology making us more productive?

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 603 posts

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

#141

Post by Tagbert »

marginalia_nu wrote: post #129
Barrin92 wrote: post #122

Because new technology is as Thiel often quips limited to the world of bits rather than the world of atoms. Paul Krugman once asked, if you go into an average house right now and you take out all the screens, could you tell that you're not in the 80s? Gordon in the Rise and Fall of American Growth gives a similar example, what if you went into a time capsule between say 1890 and 1950 compared to 1960 and 2010? In one…

There's a weird disconnect with computers. The software we use is 1000 times more complex than it was 20 years ago, leading to performance that really have not improved a lot, and a lot of functional stagnation. Many applications are slower to start today than they were 10 years ago, because back then they were binaries and today they are Electron apps. Your average web based word processor with cloud storage perform…

Word Processing is maybe not the best example. Human needs in terms of writing documents have not changed significantly in the last 20-30 years. The mechanics are not the bottleneck. neither is application startup time. I know that it is something you can measure but I don't agree that it is a significant data point. I generally only start a word processor once per day and then it stays running as I move between writing tasks and other tasks. Startup is an insignificant part of that time.

Other tasks have become more efficient in that time period. Anything involving graphics has gotten much easier to do on computers than before and can be done by more people. Project Management tools are much faster and easier to use.

What I do see in a corporate world is an emphasis efficiency that requires spending a lot more time tasks and running alternate scenarios to be more efficient. This seems more doable now because some of these things are easier but its too easy to ignore the time spent doing more of this kind of thing.

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

#142

Post by dragontamer »

adhesive_wombat wrote: post #137
humanistbot wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if you go into an average house right now and you take out all the screens, could you tell that you're not in the 80s? > The difference between a car right now and a car 30 years ago is that you can now play angry birds on a tablet. Energy efficiency and fuel economy have made massive gains. Materials are stronger and lighter. Batteries last ages compared to 30 years ago.

Also they go wrong a hell of a lot less often. 80s cars were mostly complete shit and no one was sorry to see them go. Also if you crash one, you're vastly less likely to die.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_r5UJrxcck

I always liked this IIHS crash test: 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air vs. 2009 Chevrolet Malibu

It really shows the progress. Seatbelts, the "rigid cage" to protect the driver, air bags, etc. etc.

The 1959 Bel Air crash-dummy is clearly dead, bouncing around the cabin during the crash.

The 2009 Malibu crash-dummy has a sprained neck and the face hurts from hitting the air-bag, but clearly survives.

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

#143

Post by jacobedawson »

Another poster compared 1890 to 1950 - jumping from one to the other would be obviously shocking, from 1960 - 2020 perhaps less-so, physically.

Still, I find it amazing that in 2022, I:

- Work from home via the internet with people I've never met - Visit places I've never been in simulated 3D to build familiarity - Receive exact routes to virtually anywhere from a computer in my pocket - Video call with my family in real-time literally from one side of the planet to another. - Have Copilot autocompleting repetitive lines of code for me with (ok, 60% - 70% of the time..) incredible prescience - Get real-time translation of foreign text from a printed page

Those are just some of the the most common examples from my daily life. The productivity gains are real, at least for me personally.

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

#144

Post by simplify »

IshKebab wrote: post #132
Barrin92 wrote: post #122

Because new technology is as Thiel often quips limited to the world of bits rather than the world of atoms. Paul Krugman once asked, if you go into an average house right now and you take out all the screens, could you tell that you're not in the 80s? Gordon in the Rise and Fall of American Growth gives a similar example, what if you went into a time capsule between say 1890 and 1950 compared to 1960 and 2010? In one…

> could you tell that you're not in the 80s? Well yes, because we have solar panels and heat pumps and battery powered power tools and vacuum cleaners and dishwashers and microwave ovens and smart lights and ... You wouldn't expect walls and carpets to change.

Flooring has changed too. Carpets are better looking and more resilient. Click vinyl is stronger, has good texture, easier to install, and is super durable.

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

#145

Post by dahart »

throw8383833jj wrote: post #125
dahart wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let’s frame it differently. If you redistributed all wealth from just the top 1% today to all us citizens, each person would get 40T / 300M = $133K, which would make a real (and massive) difference in most people’s lives. Redistribute the top 10%, and everyone gets $320k in savings. This would be an average of 30x more savings for the bottom half than they’d have otherwise. The biggest problem with your calculation i…

Ok, if you disagree with the number 30 as the number of years needed to acquire that wealth, just use yearly income figures. Assuming 60K is the average. So, top 10% at 173K means 113K more than the median houshold. 113/10 = 11.3K extra. So, redistributing top 10% would mean 11.3K extra for 60K average. It's something but not life changing. Considering that more than 70% of million dollar lotto winner loses almost ev…

> So, top 10% at 173K

That’s the threshold income of the top 10%, not the average. The average is much higher.

You’re insisting the spread out wealth is small in the face of evidence that it’s large, larger than your summary even by your own analysis.

> Considering that more than 70% of million dollar lotto winner loses almost everything within a few years

This is yet another faulty analysis, and the 70% number and “million dollar” part are viral misquotes, they are wrong. https://www.nefe.org/news/2018/01/research-statistic-on-fina...

I don’t blame you for it, this misleading headline has been widely reported over and over again. (But please consider not repeating this false information anymore.)

The primary study that lead to this conclusion is a study of Florida lottery winners of amounts less than $150K. The actual result of the study showed bankruptcy rates falling initially, and then rising again after several years, as people ran out of their winnings. The rates returning to normal was reported as people losing everything, which is clearly misleading spin.

https://eml.berkeley.edu/~cle/laborlunch/hoekstra.pdf

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

#146

Post by Tagbert »

ebiester wrote: post #42
gumby wrote: post #5

I was rather disappointed in Lohr (author of this piece) as he is smart and was around in the 1990s for Solow’s famous quip “We see the computer age everywhere except in the productivity statistics”. In the age of the desktop computer the iPhone would have been a flop (especially in the US’s then-backwards wireless environment). It takes time for people to understand a new capability and for it to reach the point whe…

Recently, with my husband's work, I saw three one-hour meetings turn into over 200 emails because someone doing the work refused to get on the phone and misunderstood the written word. I am skeptical that email is that much more productive for many people.

Email has its place for lower priority communication where fast response and interaction is not important.

Text chat is good for interaction but it can bog down with a lot of back and forth and sometimes the meaning is hard to get across. The latency while better than email is still slow and people will often not ask questions that they should.

When those channels are not enough I'll initiate a quick voice/video call with one or a few people to go over a specific topic. Generally we can clarify the situation through some quick questions and answers. The latency is low and answers often invoke other questions. You can usually reach an agreement very quickly that way.

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

#147

Post by adhesive_wombat »

Manafacturing productivity is though the roof. PCBs are incredibly cheap now, and lead times are in days. Micros that can do almost anything, bristling with peripherals and programmable in C or even just running Linux, rather than hand assembly or discrete circuits. Dedicated devices that cost cents handle tasks that used to take organisations months and months to design. All sorts of materials make things that used to be impossible routine. Machine control of all sorts is mind-blowing in precision, reliability and speed. You can get things lasered, printed, sintered, cast, moulded, routed, milled, waterjetted, EDMed, whatever, at prices and turnarounds that would have been complete fantasy in the past.

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

#148

Post by commandlinefan »

jacobedawson wrote: post #143

Another poster compared 1890 to 1950 - jumping from one to the other would be obviously shocking, from 1960 - 2020 perhaps less-so, physically. Still, I find it amazing that in 2022, I: - Work from home via the internet with people I've never met - Visit places I've never been in simulated 3D to build familiarity - Receive exact routes to virtually anywhere from a computer in my pocket - Video call with my family in…

I'm still inclined to mostly agree with OP who said that a visitor from 1880 to 1950 would be far more in awe than a visitor from 1950 to 2020, but it is funny sometimes how incredulous my kids are when I tell them that, for example, there was literally no way to open up a device that told you where you were when I was growing up.

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

#149

Post by adhesive_wombat »

dragontamer wrote: post #142
adhesive_wombat wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also they go wrong a hell of a lot less often. 80s cars were mostly complete shit and no one was sorry to see them go. Also if you crash one, you're vastly less likely to die.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_r5UJrxcck I always liked this IIHS crash test: 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air vs. 2009 Chevrolet Malibu It really shows the progress. Seatbelts, the "rigid cage" to protect the driver, air bags, etc. etc. The 1959 Bel Air crash-dummy is clearly dead, bouncing around the cabin during the crash. The 2009 Malibu crash-dummy has a sprained neck and the face hurts from hitting the air-bag, but cl…

I see 50s-80s cars on TV and all I can visualise is that thin metal hoop steering wheel bisecting my face like a melon.

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

#150

Post by DanBC »

IshKebab wrote: post #132
Barrin92 wrote: post #122

Because new technology is as Thiel often quips limited to the world of bits rather than the world of atoms. Paul Krugman once asked, if you go into an average house right now and you take out all the screens, could you tell that you're not in the 80s? Gordon in the Rise and Fall of American Growth gives a similar example, what if you went into a time capsule between say 1890 and 1950 compared to 1960 and 2010? In one…

> could you tell that you're not in the 80s? Well yes, because we have solar panels and heat pumps and battery powered power tools and vacuum cleaners and dishwashers and microwave ovens and smart lights and ... You wouldn't expect walls and carpets to change.

> You wouldn't expect walls and carpets to change

Yes, but even there we're not using flammable polystyrene ceiling tiles, nor asbestos floor tiles and asbestos glue any more.

Post reply on HN