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

Average Is Over

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 254 posts

Re: Average Is Over

#81

Post by gaius »

rythie wrote: post #75
jmtame wrote: post #14

It was only a few centuries ago that we paid this exclusive, elite upper class in society called scribes to write and transcribe things for us, because we weren't literate enough to do it ourselves. The parallels are pretty surprising today: we're paying an exclusive, elite class called programmers to write in the languages understood by computers. Software is eating the world, jobs are being displaced, and the deman…

Is programming that elite though? wages seemed to have hardly changed in the U.K. in the last 10 years (accounting for inflation). Also programming pays a similar amount to other jobs requiring a degree and is certainly a lot less than jobs like accountancy, finance, law and medical doctors. For example, average programmer salary in 2004 was about £31k and in £38k http://www.itjobswatch.co.uk/jobs/uk/programmer.do an…

What no-one will talk about is: the economy never actually recovered from the dot-com crash. The last 10 years were a mirage built on debt. So now we need to deal with TWO aftermaths. And that is why economists say UK standards of living will revert to 2002 levels.

Re: Average Is Over

#82

Post by gorbachev »

WalterBright wrote: post #11

The flip side is that all this automation makes stuff cheaper, and a better lifestyle is available for less money.

For those with money.

The working poor, created by organizations such as the iPod factory quoted in the article, still can't afford anything, because the living costs are rising faster than their income.

We need to stop subsidizing companies that offload the costs of their labor onto the rest of us.

Re: Average Is Over

#83

Post by Riesling »

wladimir wrote: post #22
richardburton wrote: post #7

This is fascinating. I think the big (and scary) meta-trend is this: The population is increasing and the requirement for people is decreasing. This gap is made wider by increased birth-rates and better automation. More people are being born into a world where fewer are required. That is quite a scary thought. Computers and machines automate and replace people everywhere. I have some anecdotal evidence of this: At my…

I think it's also a matter of what kind of world we want. For example: Do you choose to use software instead of employing a person because you prefer the software, or would you prefer to hire a person but choose software because it is cheaper (which helps the company survive) and kind-of can do the same job? If it's the first, there's a good reason to be scared. If it's the second, then market forces might eventually…

> Do you choose to use software instead of employing a person because you prefer the software

I think in the long run the software will do a much better job than a person. It's inevitable in my opinion. We are not even a century into computing and look what we already have achieved.

> I do not like to think about an automated, antisocial world

That is because you define your world as the action of going to work in order to receive food and shelter. This does not necessarily have to be your world. I say we should leave this world to machines while everybody can go on to do what he is really passionate about.

Of course we need a different distribution mechanism of goods created by the machines. But that's a different question.

Re: Average Is Over

#84

Post by zoltarSpeaks »

robryan wrote: post #69
zoltarSpeaks wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I completely agree with this. There is an attitude just like this in England at the moment. There aren't enough graduates using their initiative and being creative in either finding jobs or making work for themselves to fight the declining level of jobs. The assumption is, leave school, go to University, get a job. Unfortunately for them that route is failing now.

In the past, when less people were attending university, this would be true as in getting a degree you were putting yourself into a fairly exclusive group. Now though, when so many are getting degrees, you need to go above and beyond them to put yourself in a group as exclusive as the degree would give you a generation ago.

Yeah i think you're spot on, it's that ability to shine out from the crowd that is required. Although i guess the exclusivity of being a graduate could easily return with recent hike up in fees within the last couple of years.

Re: Average Is Over

#85

Post by aangjie »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #70
invalidOrTaken wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why you got downvoted (and your reply was certainly within the guidelines), but your answer left me with some questions: would profits left overseas mean that (well duh, but more so than otherwise) foreign consumer markets will pick up noticeably (and we therefore should be paying close attention)? And is there some specific reason the private sector is deleveraging? Have CFO's just gotten more spooked t…

...would profits left overseas mean that (well duh, but more so than otherwise) foreign consumer markets will pick up noticeably... No guarantee, but it's likely. If the overseas profits are invested, then yes. If it sits in the bank and is not invested, then maybe not. From what I've read and seen, it seems that overseas consumer markets are increasing. Here in Pune, it's definitely the case. There are a ridiculous…

I can vouch for a similar increase in consumer markets in Bangalore.. Been in chennai a few months and am suspecting the same here too....

Re: Average Is Over

#86

Post by jnorthrop »

muyuu wrote: post #72
_delirium wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

nowadays even the lower 10% have their basic needs covered and some left for leisure Only really because of what's left of the welfare system, mainly Medicaid, Section 8 housing, food stamps, and the EITC; which I agree does help on the low end, but is increasingly being time-limited and rationed (e.g. Section 8 is hard to get into). The 10th-percentile household income in the U.S. is around $12,000. If that's all yo…

Denmark's safety net is one thing, some whacko communist universal subsidy is another. Said safety net doesn't decrease disparity significantly, while giving some universal coverage for basic needs. As long as it's not a bigger burden to the economy than the alternative, I'd have nothing against something like this. I also believe the safety nets here in the UK are about right, in general terms. The government is sti…

Did you really think a national healthcare system is a "whacko communist" idea? If you want to debate it's merits please do, but don't resort to petty name calling.

Re: Average Is Over

#88

Post by reader5000 »

rythie wrote: post #75
jmtame wrote: post #14

It was only a few centuries ago that we paid this exclusive, elite upper class in society called scribes to write and transcribe things for us, because we weren't literate enough to do it ourselves. The parallels are pretty surprising today: we're paying an exclusive, elite class called programmers to write in the languages understood by computers. Software is eating the world, jobs are being displaced, and the deman…

Is programming that elite though? wages seemed to have hardly changed in the U.K. in the last 10 years (accounting for inflation). Also programming pays a similar amount to other jobs requiring a degree and is certainly a lot less than jobs like accountancy, finance, law and medical doctors. For example, average programmer salary in 2004 was about £31k and in £38k http://www.itjobswatch.co.uk/jobs/uk/programmer.do an…

I don't know about the UK but in the US accounting, law, and medicine require appropriate licensing keeping supply low and wages high(er). But I dont think programming will ever reach the prestige of law/medicine since in the former you are engineering machines whereas in the latter you are engineering the human body and society, which will always be way sexier.

Re: Average Is Over

#89

Post by marvin »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #58
invalidOrTaken wrote: post #52

One question I've had for...a while now. If a) corporate profits are up b) hiring isn't happening, or is seeing a skills mismatch then where exactly are all these profits going? If they're going to capital goods for the company, that just moves the question on down the line. If they're going to shareholders, then what are those shareholders buying? And if it's just sitting in the bank, where is the bank lending it ou…

Many of the profits were earned overseas, and are being left there. If they bring the profits home to the US, they will be taxed. Essentially, the US is levying a tax on (certain) foreign investment, specifically investment by Google Ireland in Google USA. Additionally, most of the private sector is deleveraging and building up cash reserves to use in lieu of debt financing.

Do you have numbers or references on the deleveraging point? I know that Google, Apple and Microsoft are sitting on vast cash reserves...but is this what is happening in the economy in general? If this is the case, then this is as far as I can tell good news. Debt serves a purpose, but if it causes systemic problems like we've seen in recent years then it should be kept low.

Re: Average Is Over

#90

Post by jedbrown »

wladimir wrote: post #22
richardburton wrote: post #7

This is fascinating. I think the big (and scary) meta-trend is this: The population is increasing and the requirement for people is decreasing. This gap is made wider by increased birth-rates and better automation. More people are being born into a world where fewer are required. That is quite a scary thought. Computers and machines automate and replace people everywhere. I have some anecdotal evidence of this: At my…

I think it's also a matter of what kind of world we want. For example: Do you choose to use software instead of employing a person because you prefer the software, or would you prefer to hire a person but choose software because it is cheaper (which helps the company survive) and kind-of can do the same job? If it's the first, there's a good reason to be scared. If it's the second, then market forces might eventually…

If it's the second, then market forces might eventually balance out and make hiring people an attractive choice again.

It's definitely not going to balance out so that it becomes economical to hire people for today's low-skill jobs. At any given time, there will be jobs that machines are capable of, but that it is more economical to hire people for. However, the skill level required for those jobs is going to keep increasing.

Post reply on HN