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

Let’s Be Less Productive

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 84 posts

Re: Let’s Be Less Productive

#11

Post by freshnote »

JonnieCache wrote: post #8
freshnote wrote: post #3

I consider myself highly productive, efficient (when I'm not on HN) and reasonably smart and informed, and yet I'm not living any better than other people who don't even know how to turn on a computer and never read books. In terms of material wealth, I'm way behind many others my age (I don't own furniture or a vehicle). Still trying to figure that one out.

What is it you're producing so much of so efficiently that somehow nobody is willing to pay you for?

I get paid, but I'm feeling the squeeze by everyone for lower rates (I do freelance web design, writing, social media management).

When not doing client work, I experiment with new ideas, products and so on, and so there are time and development costs and more misses than hits.

Admittedly, I'm not a materialist guy, but my point is knowing a lot of tech stuff and working long hours doesn't guarantee wealth. I might even be better off financially if I didn't know this stuff.

Re: Let’s Be Less Productive

#12

Post by lmm »

Think about it on an individual level. Suppose the economy is such that there's only demand for 21 hours/week worth of your labour. Would you rather a) work 21 hours/week b) work 40 hours/week, badly? Because that's what choosing to lower productivity amounts to.

Re: Let’s Be Less Productive

#13

Post by ef4 »

This kind of alarmism is both very old and economically ignorant.

We have already experienced this scenario multiple times, and it always leaves us better off. Consider that 200 years ago almost everyone was in farming, and now it employs less than 2%, thanks to drastically higher productivity.

We didn't all end up unemployed. We invented whole new things to work on. Most of us are doing things our ancestors would have thought were impossible or frivolous or just bizarre.

Re: Let’s Be Less Productive

#14

Post by virmundi »

freshnote wrote: post #11
JonnieCache wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is it you're producing so much of so efficiently that somehow nobody is willing to pay you for?

I get paid, but I'm feeling the squeeze by everyone for lower rates (I do freelance web design, writing, social media management). When not doing client work, I experiment with new ideas, products and so on, and so there are time and development costs and more misses than hits. Admittedly, I'm not a materialist guy, but my point is knowing a lot of tech stuff and working long hours doesn't guarantee wealth. I might e…

It seems like you're getting squeezed because you haven't stayed with the market. I've seen companies advertise template sites for as little as $100. The sites are all customizable via a WYSIWGY interface. They are also hosted for a small monthly fee because none of them will be a huge burden on the ISP. As a result, this space is moving to more automated, but non-distinct sites.

Are you creating a similar setup? Are you able to compete by having a site made for $100 in under an hour? If not, you can still make money in this space, but you're going to have to be high end. Your clientèle will have to be high end. They will have to be willing to pay high end prices too. And let's not forget that there are many competitors aiming for this exact space. What differentiates you from them? Can you buy/merge with them? All things to consider.

Re: Let’s Be Less Productive

#15

Post by marvin »

lmm wrote: post #12

Think about it on an individual level. Suppose the economy is such that there's only demand for 21 hours/week worth of your labour. Would you rather a) work 21 hours/week b) work 40 hours/week, badly? Because that's what choosing to lower productivity amounts to.

Well, from anecdotal evidence, this is what a lot of people already do. Option A seems like a much better idea.

Re: Let’s Be Less Productive

#16

Post by ef4 »

jeffool wrote: post #2

The thought of eschewing productivity makes me cringe instantly. But that said, I worry he's not wrong about some things. Our economies don't seem to be growing fast enough to negate the downsides of things like automation. Rather than slow down productivity, which surely few other nations would do, wouldn't it serve us better in the long run to do a better job of splitting up the work between capable hands? In that…

You're forgetting a key point. If productivity doubles, living on half your current salary would be no problem, because all that productivity will be driving down the cost of most things.

Re: Let’s Be Less Productive

#17

Post by ecmendenhall »

Stuff is not growth, in the same way that money is not wealth (PG gets this. You have probably read the essay: http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html). Growth is just increasing wealth, but we measure it in terms of stuff (GDP, factor productivity) because it's easy. There may be natural limits to the amount of stuff we can produce. But there are, in principle, no natural limits to the amount of wealth we can produce.

Growth—that is, more wealth due to better technology and higher productivity—is exactly what enabled the New York Philharmonic to play Beethoven's Ninth in the first place, instead of farm potatoes or work in a factory. It's exactly what enables me to buy a ticket and go listen in person, or spend nothing and watch the performance online, even though I'm not a king or priest or robber baron! Pronouncements that growth (read: wealth, innovation, technology, knowledge) must end are as silly as past pronouncements that we have reached the limits of scientific knowledge and all that's left is to look in the sixth place of decimals.

In fact, one path to more growth and better wealth is actually more productivity in the "caring professions" singled out here. Medicine, social work, and education all suffer from a similar stuff-growth measurement problem! (Here is one discussion of this argument: http://www.economist.com/node/21016577) We want better health, but we can't measure it very well, so we rely on healthcare spending. We want better social services, but it's tough to quantify outcomes, so we measure inputs like program budgets. We want better education, but we're not sure what works, so we measure number of teachers and test scores. Despite spending more and producing more stuff in each area, there has been little growth in the last few decades.

Professors of economics and sustainable development are both susceptible to this fallacy.

Re: Let’s Be Less Productive

#18

Post by dbingham »

ef4 wrote: post #13

This kind of alarmism is both very old and economically ignorant. We have already experienced this scenario multiple times, and it always leaves us better off. Consider that 200 years ago almost everyone was in farming, and now it employs less than 2%, thanks to drastically higher productivity. We didn't all end up unemployed. We invented whole new things to work on. Most of us are doing things our ancestors would ha…

Actually, the farming trend is being reversed. We've realized that the compromises we have to make in order to produce enough to feed us with only 2% of the population results in food that is actually killing us and generating super pests.

The trend is now headed back to more farmers working on smaller less efficient farms with out machines (or with fewer machines) or chemicals. So don't base your argument on the example of farming.

Re: Let’s Be Less Productive

#19

Post by dbingham »

ef4 wrote: post #16
jeffool wrote: post #2

The thought of eschewing productivity makes me cringe instantly. But that said, I worry he's not wrong about some things. Our economies don't seem to be growing fast enough to negate the downsides of things like automation. Rather than slow down productivity, which surely few other nations would do, wouldn't it serve us better in the long run to do a better job of splitting up the work between capable hands? In that…

You're forgetting a key point. If productivity doubles, living on half your current salary would be no problem, because all that productivity will be driving down the cost of most things.

It rarely actually works like that anymore. Companies have gotten very good at controlling their supply to ensure they can maintain high enough margins that their executives can take home ridiculous paychecks.

Re: Let’s Be Less Productive

#20

Post by dbingham »

jeffool wrote: post #2

The thought of eschewing productivity makes me cringe instantly. But that said, I worry he's not wrong about some things. Our economies don't seem to be growing fast enough to negate the downsides of things like automation. Rather than slow down productivity, which surely few other nations would do, wouldn't it serve us better in the long run to do a better job of splitting up the work between capable hands? In that…

On the whole 21 hour work week thing, I think one way to deal with the compensation issue would be to enforce maximum gaps. By which I mean, write a law that says the top compensated individual in any company can only be compensated so many times the bottom. So if an executive wants to be paid more, after a certain point he has to raise everyone else's salary too. This would also help deal with the issue of executive salaries being roughly 400x average wage. Limit that to 50x or 10x. Money would be much more evenly distributed.
Post reply on HN