Let’s Be Less Productive • Hacker News Board

Re: Let’s Be Less Productive

#21

Post by heliodor » Mon, May 28, 2012, 1:33 PM UTC

CookWithMe wrote: post #6

robfig wrote: post #5

I could be mistaken, but part of the assumption here seems to be that everyone is equally good at their job. It seems far better to have the incredible teachers leveraged as far as possible (to teach the most number of students while still remaining effective) rather than having everyone chip in their 21 hours and go home. Since this applies in every industry, it seems to explain why businesses prefer to have fewer (…

> It seems far better to have the incredible teachers leveraged as far as possible And your assumption is that the potential leverage is quite big. I doubt it: I've seen many students profit a lot from 1 on 1 private lessons - from students 2 or 3 years ahead of them (or even from the same class). They are arguably nowhere near as good as a teacher who has studied teaching and has years of experience. Yet they can he…

He was talking about hours worked, not class size. And he has a very good point. All the talk in the tech community about the 10x programmer comes to mind.

Re: Let’s Be Less Productive

#22

Post by weavejester » Mon, May 28, 2012, 1:46 PM UTC

dbingham wrote: post #18

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 exa…

Even if there's a (small) current trend in the opposite direction for farming, we're not going to go back to the level of productivity of the 1800s, or the 1900s, or even the 1950s. The overall trend over the past 200 years in farming has overwhelming toward increasing yield.

Re: Let’s Be Less Productive

#23

Post by jchrisa » Mon, May 28, 2012, 1:47 PM UTC

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…

The idea that being less productive is a solution to the problem, is already to have given away the game to a set of concepts that stack the deck in favor of more of the same. We all know that the things that really matter cannot be measured (yes even indigenous subsistence farmers have free time and fun). If you want to rewire your ideas around this, you could do worse than start with this book (free online or print). So far it's blown every mind I've sent it to. http://sacred-economics.com/sacred-economics-introduction/

Re: Let’s Be Less Productive

#24

Post by broadstrokes » Mon, May 28, 2012, 1:47 PM UTC

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…

Given the typically disproportionate cost of housing in most areas, I'm in favour of utterly massive protectionism/nationalization of housing infrastructure and other non-tradable goods fundamental to human need; disallow all speculative investment in property (foreign or otherwise), voila, instant price drops and quality of life increase for anyone who doesn't already own a home.

What isn't usually mentioned in discussions like this are the resulting lack of returns on investment on behalf of future retirees, but to be honest, I can't imagine why anyone would rationally expect an economy to be stable enough that they could plan not to work for 40+ years of their life - looking around the world, this delusion is almost exclusively a Western phenomenon; there are other valid models.

Re: Let’s Be Less Productive

#25

Post by narag » Mon, May 28, 2012, 1:53 PM UTC

dbingham wrote: post #18

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 exa…

It doesn't seem fair to put all the blame on automatization. I've read here that high fructose corn syrup is suspect of contributing to obesity and some other diseases. But is automatization responsible or USA regulations and subsides?

In general, I'd say that the main factor is that the change of having cheap and abundant food is not followed by a change in diet. It takes some pain and a couple generations (in the best case) to adapt.

Re: Let’s Be Less Productive

#26

Post by politician » Mon, May 28, 2012, 1:55 PM UTC

dbingham wrote: post #20

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…

That sounds like a fine idea, but realize that just before the law comes into force affected companies will move their operations overseas [1].

Do you support punitive tariffs on foreign imports?

[1] http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2040142,00....

Re: Let’s Be Less Productive

#27

Post by KaoruAoiShiho » Mon, May 28, 2012, 1:58 PM UTC

dbingham wrote: post #19

ef4 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well theoretically that shouldn't be possible. Someone else should be there to expand supply and drive down your margins. Speaking on a macro level ef4 is right.

Re: Let’s Be Less Productive

#28

Post by [deleted] » Mon, May 28, 2012, 1:58 PM UTC

dbingham wrote: post #18

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 exa…

[deleted]

Re: Let’s Be Less Productive

#29

Post by GFischer » Mon, May 28, 2012, 2:05 PM UTC

virmundi wrote: post #14

freshnote wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Indeed. I'm working with a company here in Uruguay that can give you a pretty good website (with CMS, e-commerce and whatever you need) in 3 days, for probably a lot lower wage than the grandparent poster. And they complain (rightfully) that they can't compete with India shops.

What's his added value? In an Internet world, all such work where the customer doesn't see his added value (other than "buy american" or some such) should go to the country with cheapest skilled labor. Unless he's working in person and gives that as his added value (neither the Indians nor my Uruguayan friends will be able to compete then).

Re: Let’s Be Less Productive

#30

Post by yummyfajitas » Mon, May 28, 2012, 2:05 PM UTC

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…

This line of reasoning is fallacious. See the following graph:

http://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2012/human_vs_machine_prog...

So far, we've invented whole new things to work on. There is no compelling reason to believe that will continue to happen.

Incidentally, that scenario hasn't always left biological entities better off. When technology reduced the wages for travel below the level of horse subsistence, the result was massive deaths among horses. But humans are special, right? That can't ever happen to us.