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

Are Computers Making Society More Unequal?

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 116 posts

Re: Are Computers Making Society More Unequal?

#41

Post by ForHackernews »

nathan_long wrote: post #18
pradocchia wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some day, when the AI systems take over, and the world no longer needs so many people that enjoy reading programming manuals and studying Fourier transformations, the great bulk of programmers will be lined up and shot, in retribution for their years of pampered arrogance. And it won't be the people we put out of work, it will be the people who paid us, who will have long since had enough of it.

I find your comment bizarre. A baker doesn't spend $X on flour unless she can make more than that from selling the bread. Companies don't pay programmers big bucks and give nice benefits unless they make a lot more off the software programmers build. Nobody is getting ripped off here.

What a joke. What you've written could be said of any well-paid job right up until it's eliminated: "Telegraph operators were paid well and felt themselves part of an honored profession. It was a good way to make a living for a lot of people."[1]

Companies would be THRILLED to eliminate developers and no longer have to pay them. And plenty of people are working on that problem:

"Imagine sitting at a Salesforce event in 2008 in Chicago while Salesforce.com’s CEO, Marc Benioff, swiftly works an entire room of business users into an anti-software frenzy. I was there to learn about Force.com, and I’ll summarize the message I understood four years ago as 'Not only can companies benefit from Salesforce.com, they also don’t have to hire developers.'"[2]

[1] http://www.appalachianhistory.net/2010/06/3918.html [2] http://programming.oreilly.com/2012/10/salesforce-developers...

Re: Are Computers Making Society More Unequal?

#42

Post by nathan_long »

Why is the sale of labor considered so different than the sale of anything else?

You don't feel immoral selling your car to the highest bidder. Why should selling your labor be different?

You don't feel immoral buying bananas as cheaply as possible. Why should purchasing labor be different?

I'm not trolling; I'm genuinely trying to think through these questions.

Re: Are Computers Making Society More Unequal?

#43

Post by frogpelt »

Wealth has always been closely linked with the amount of value a person can provide to other people. Of course I am leaving out wealth created through corruption or sheer power.

Intelligent machines, software and connectivity have only made it easier for a single person to provide value to millions of other people.

Lebron James makes $60 million a year because the NBA, the Miami Heat, and the companies that he endorses feel he provides at least that much value to their organizations and brands. NBA players fifty years ago didn't make that much because the fans weren't able to have the kind of access that is available now through 24/7 sports TV channels, the Internet, social media. That increased access through technology means Lebron can provide more value.

Re: Are Computers Making Society More Unequal?

#44

Post by [deleted] »

nathan_long wrote: post #18
pradocchia wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some day, when the AI systems take over, and the world no longer needs so many people that enjoy reading programming manuals and studying Fourier transformations, the great bulk of programmers will be lined up and shot, in retribution for their years of pampered arrogance. And it won't be the people we put out of work, it will be the people who paid us, who will have long since had enough of it.

I find your comment bizarre. A baker doesn't spend $X on flour unless she can make more than that from selling the bread. Companies don't pay programmers big bucks and give nice benefits unless they make a lot more off the software programmers build. Nobody is getting ripped off here.

[deleted]

Re: Are Computers Making Society More Unequal?

#45

Post by humanrebar »

rayiner wrote: post #11
[deleted] wrote: post #5

[deleted]

Automobiles have not done wonderful things for minority groups in inner cities. There have always been ghettos and rich areas, of course, but they used to be right next to each other. Now, you have middle class and rich people living in suburban enclaves which they protect by lobbying to keep them inaccessible except by car. The advent of the car has been incredibly damaging and polarizing to the American social fabr…

That may be true in some respects, but things like refrigerated shipping, ambulances, sanitation (cars do not defecate in the street), and modern logistics have both saved lives and decreased the cost of essentials, even for the car-less urban poor.

I'm also skeptical that the balkanization of modern postal codes could be a result of the car. I currently hypothesize that that it is a result of postmodern influence on social structures, but it's surely a complex phenomenon in any case. To throw the blame for this across the hood of a car is an oversimplification at best.

Finally, while urban areas are more segregated by class, the quality of life across regions has largely improved across the board. It used to be that only people in cities had access to professional medical care, law enforcement, electricity, and running water. Now, every log cabin in the woods (even if it is inhabited by people of color) has a toilet that flushes and a phone to call an ambulance with. I don't think the development of the automobile is unrelated to this development.

Re: Are Computers Making Society More Unequal?

#46

Post by nagrom »

jiggy2011 wrote: post #16
guylhem wrote: post #6

It's funny how the "equality" thing can depend on various notions - including assumptions. Unless we are talking about unconditional equality (i.e. same for everyone including slackers), what about an equality based on how productive people are? It's called marginal productivity ethics, and following that theory our current society is very unequal, and the society envisioned by the articled (the so called "hyper meri…

I think it's partly that technology can multiply the differences in marginal productivity between people. For example it's a common meme on HN to talk about "10X" or "100X" programmers. If such things are true then it probably makes sense for 100X programmers to be paid 100X more. The difference between a 1X and 10X programmer however may only be marginal in terms of actual intelligence etc. Therefor if we assume a 1…

There's also the fact that if a 1x programmer gets forced out the market, the 10x programmers become 1x programmers (by the definition of a 1x programmer) and the 100x programmers become 10x programmers...

Re: Are Computers Making Society More Unequal?

#47

Post by liber8 »

alex-g wrote: post #24

I don't care about inequality (of outcome). I care about suffering. Automation may increase inequality between those who are able to take advantage of it, and those who aren't - but it is better to say that increased automation exposes an existing problem. Namely, it so happened that many people were recently able to make a reasonably comfortable living in less-skilled work. There was always a population who couldn't…

This is an excellent point, though I'm not sure you'll be in agreement with why I feel that way. The issue comes down to how you define "suffering".

One of the reasons income inequality is such a silly measurement of overall economic well-being is because people often believe it must be correlated with suffering. In other words, those at the poorer end of the spectrum must be suffering relative to those at the rich end (and usually because of those at the rich end). But this doesn't appear to be true in modern society at all.

In reality, those at the poor end of the spectrum have never experienced less (physical) suffering. Food, clean water, and basic shelter have never been cheaper. On a minimum wage salary, you can live a life without what I would call suffering, though it will look nothing like the typical portrayal of "middle class" life we see on TV. If you're sick, you can get extremely advanced medical care without cost (even in the US, there are free clinics in all major cities, and if you visit the emergency room, though you may be billed preposterous sums, you'll still get care).

What constitutes "suffering" is probably one of the biggest disconnects that plague liberals and conservatives.

Re: Are Computers Making Society More Unequal?

#48

Post by nathan_long »

jchrisa wrote: post #35
nathan_long wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If most people are envious of Bill Gates, does it follow that they have the right to take away his money and redistribute it?

They have the right to tax it or inflate it away.

Really? What if society consisted of 10 people on an island, and only one of them was great at catching fish. Would the others have the right to take his fish and redistribute them?

Re: Are Computers Making Society More Unequal?

#49

Post by dragonwriter »

api wrote: post #40
MrBuddyCasino wrote: post #4

I call bullshit on this. The nordic countries have a pretty great tech sector too, and they don't suffer from this. Its a policy thing, and I was always under the impression that this is a choice that the USA has made consciously, and is widely acepted as a given - that cutthroat capitalism creates greater inequality, with (maybe) bigger growth rates.

I agree. Reaganomics started massively concentrating wealth long before the Internet came along.

Surprisingly, cutting the (progressive) income tax rates and raising the (flat-to-regressive) payroll tax rates made the rich richer and the poor poorer.

Who could have guessed?

Re: Are Computers Making Society More Unequal?

#50

Post by _delirium »

randomdata wrote: post #39
_delirium wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure how this really relates to merit or shortcomings or being your fault . I'm good at technology, and I make money at it, but I don't see this as a particularly great merit or the result of my hard work and prescience. I've liked and been adept with computers since I was 4 or 5; I'm "the kind of person who enjoys reading programming manuals" you mention. I'm no good at drawing, though, and I'm not particula…

You are certainly lucky that your natural interests lead you to something lucrative, but you are good with technology because you presumably spent considerable amount of time practising with the technology. If you spent more time drawing, you would eventually become good at that too. If we imagine technology jobs dropped off the face of the earth tomorrow and drawing suddenly became a high paying career, would you in…

I guess it depends on the degree of need. If I were starving and had no choice but to take up drawing as a career, I guess I would try. But if technology were still something you could make $40k/yr doing, I'd probably stick with it, because it's more interesting to me. I'm in technology for the technology more than for the money. In some ways I kind of wonder if it'd like it more: what would technology as a field be like if the $100k+ jobs and big exits were gone, and the people who were here primarily for the money therefore lost interest and went elsewhere?

I think that's reasonably common. I can't think of people I'd consider "highly meritorious" technologists who have no strong like of technology, and picked the field just because it was a good career. In fact may of them picked the field in a previous era, when it wasn't as lucrative of a career. I think many people who are good at and interested in something have fairly high "stickiness" to it, so salaries tend to track the rise and fall of the fields, more than the merit of individual people, who don't switch fields that easily or quickly. It's in that sense I'm skeptical that salaries are a good indication of "merit". They're just an indication of what they literally are: the current relationship between market supply and demand for a specific skill. This may even related to all kinds of structural issues, e.g. quick spikes in demand coupled with slowly responding training pipelines may cause high salaries in an area to persist for a decade or two, but this has more to do with the training pipeline's slow response than the existing workers' high merit. (And similarly in reverse.)

Post reply on HN