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

Google and tech’s elite are living in a parallel universe – John Naughton

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 108 posts

Re: Google and tech’s elite are living in a parallel universe – John Naughton

#31

Post by aragot »

buro9 wrote: post #14

My view is that the industrial revolution devised machines which, whilst increasing the efficiency of production, helped to increase the efficiency by which states and key individuals were able to extract wealth from others. In that case, as time progressed, the people started to become aware of the inequality and the leaders and states started to see the result (in Russia and other countries) of this inequality bein…

I'm worried about the form of the redistribution. In France, we have small taxes in many places. Just one example: We dealt with copyright issues by creating a tax on storage mediums, from a few cents to 20-40€ depending on the container, the size and the volatility - more than 40 different tax levels (see tables here [1]). Obviously they included the bureaucracy feature, where if you're a company you can send back a form and be reimbursed. I'm confident the same kind of insane level of tax compexity exists in pretty much any country and it implements revenue equality by squashing entrepreneurship at its root. Less innovation, less inequality ;)

So let's go ahead: Which forms of redistribution would do you see? Your comment made me notice that taxes proportional to the number of ads already exist (the VAT) and doesn't help redistributing. We need to take into account the change of scale. Would it be a tax per number of available cars for car-sharing services, then a tax per node in the friend graph for social networks? Sounds insane, but is it what we're bound to implement?

[1] http://www.culturecommunication.gouv.fr/Politiques-ministeri...

Re: Google and tech’s elite are living in a parallel universe – John Naughton

#32

Post by jdimov »

I honestly don't understand why bitter, unaccomplished people believe that someone who creates wealth has an obligation to share that wealth with them. I believe that's commonly called "jealousy" and no, it doesn't give you a moral high ground, nor will it solve any of your problems and it will certainly not make you richer any time soon - quite the contrary, it ensures that you will remain miserable for the rest of your life.

Re: Google and tech’s elite are living in a parallel universe – John Naughton

#33

Post by fennecfoxen »

buro9 wrote: post #14

My view is that the industrial revolution devised machines which, whilst increasing the efficiency of production, helped to increase the efficiency by which states and key individuals were able to extract wealth from others. In that case, as time progressed, the people started to become aware of the inequality and the leaders and states started to see the result (in Russia and other countries) of this inequality bein…

> My view is that the industrial revolution devised machines which, whilst increasing the efficiency of production, helped to increase the efficiency by which states and key individuals were able to extract wealth from others... as time progressed, the people started to become aware of the inequality.

Your armchair version of economic history seems a little squishy.

What of the earlier inequality? What of the landed nobility, kings and barons and knights, the historical elites which we had before the entrepreneurial ones? Were the people simply blind to the inequality at the time?

And if the result of the industrial revolution is construed as a better way to extract wealth from human beings, then why were both elites and commoners materially better off than they were as serfs?

Heaven forbid that we should respect capital investment for being able to generate wealth better and more efficiently. Surely this would be a betrayal of class solidarity and the dignity of labor.

Re: Google and tech’s elite are living in a parallel universe – John Naughton

#34

Post by jdimov »

aragot wrote: post #31
buro9 wrote: post #14

My view is that the industrial revolution devised machines which, whilst increasing the efficiency of production, helped to increase the efficiency by which states and key individuals were able to extract wealth from others. In that case, as time progressed, the people started to become aware of the inequality and the leaders and states started to see the result (in Russia and other countries) of this inequality bein…

I'm worried about the form of the redistribution. In France, we have small taxes in many places. Just one example: We dealt with copyright issues by creating a tax on storage mediums, from a few cents to 20-40€ depending on the container, the size and the volatility - more than 40 different tax levels (see tables here [1]). Obviously they included the bureaucracy feature, where if you're a company you can send back a…

Re-distribution?? Ex-cuse-me?? These aren't YOUR cookies, you bum! Make your own cookies and THEN worry about re-distribution! When someone else has made the cookies, YOU DON'T GET A SAY in how they are distributed, do you get that?

Re: Google and tech’s elite are living in a parallel universe – John Naughton

#35

Post by eli_gottlieb »

jnbiche wrote: post #6

While there's a lot of inflammatory, and frankly unfounded, accusations here, I do strongly agree with two major points: 1) Like Cameron, most SV tech workers are utterly convinced that they are doing "good", even if that means replacing jobs with machines. I don't necessarily have a problem with replacing jobs with machines, but we have to come up with some means of sustenance and stimulation to replace jobs for tho…

>1) Like Cameron, most SV tech workers are utterly convinced that they are doing "good", even if that means replacing jobs with machines.

I'm not convinced! I'm an ideological accelerationist! I think that I need to push the automation process to act more quickly in order to bring about the severe contrasts between "now" and "then" that make human beings sit up, take notice, and actually make social change. I think if we let the process move too slowly, we risk winding up in a new Dark Age in which not only do we suffer severe inequality and oppression, but we rationalize and allow them through a publicly-endorsed ideology that explicitly structures society hierarchically.

I want people to get shocked by exploitation and inequality, shocked into fighting them, before they get so damned used to it that they just allow themselves to be exploited and oppressed.

Re: Google and tech’s elite are living in a parallel universe – John Naughton

#36

Post by sz4kerto »

jdimov wrote: post #32

I honestly don't understand why bitter, unaccomplished people believe that someone who creates wealth has an obligation to share that wealth with them. I believe that's commonly called "jealousy" and no, it doesn't give you a moral high ground, nor will it solve any of your problems and it will certainly not make you richer any time soon - quite the contrary, it ensures that you will remain miserable for the rest of…

This would all be true if we could easily identify who's creating wealth. Hint: it does not completely equal with individuals who receive the money in the end. Over the couple of thousand years societies realized this, that's why the societies try to smoothen things out a little. It is nice to think that we, technologists in our 20s, 30s have figured it all out because we read Atlas Shrugged once, but reality is slightly more complex. :) (Disclaimer: I consider myself a libertarian, but I am already too old to think that a few simple rules could save the world.)

Re: Google and tech’s elite are living in a parallel universe – John Naughton

#37

Post by eli_gottlieb »

fennecfoxen wrote: post #33
buro9 wrote: post #14

My view is that the industrial revolution devised machines which, whilst increasing the efficiency of production, helped to increase the efficiency by which states and key individuals were able to extract wealth from others. In that case, as time progressed, the people started to become aware of the inequality and the leaders and states started to see the result (in Russia and other countries) of this inequality bein…

> My view is that the industrial revolution devised machines which, whilst increasing the efficiency of production, helped to increase the efficiency by which states and key individuals were able to extract wealth from others... as time progressed, the people started to become aware of the inequality. Your armchair version of economic history seems a little squishy. What of the earlier inequality? What of the landed…

>And if the result of the industrial revolution is construed as a better way to extract wealth from human beings, then why were both elites and commoners materially better off than they were as serfs?

Simply put: they weren't. The very first labor movements were formed precisely because the landless proletarians of the Industrial Revolution were actually worse off (in terms of objectively measurable things like disease rates, nutrition, sanitation, average height) than their parents and grandparents had been as peasants (mind, this is at least partially because the period just before the Industrial Revolution was, in many countries, unusually prosperous for the peasantry).

Re: Google and tech’s elite are living in a parallel universe – John Naughton

#38

Post by happyscrappy »

hownottowrite wrote: post #30

I'm not sure if the Naughton is trying to incite populist rage or evoke some sort of self-conscious shame. Maybe both? Either way it is ridiculous. Tech elites have always existed in a parallel universe. Careful tending to their needs and acceptance of their peculiarities has been part of the bargain with those in power.

Indeed, the look of horror from the Oracle suits at programmers in shorts and sandals when the other elevator broke.

Re: Google and tech’s elite are living in a parallel universe – John Naughton

#40

Post by fennecfoxen »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #37
fennecfoxen wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My view is that the industrial revolution devised machines which, whilst increasing the efficiency of production, helped to increase the efficiency by which states and key individuals were able to extract wealth from others... as time progressed, the people started to become aware of the inequality. Your armchair version of economic history seems a little squishy. What of the earlier inequality? What of the landed…

>And if the result of the industrial revolution is construed as a better way to extract wealth from human beings, then why were both elites and commoners materially better off than they were as serfs? Simply put: they weren't. The very first labor movements were formed precisely because the landless proletarians of the Industrial Revolution were actually worse off (in terms of objectively measurable things like disea…

> mind, this is at least partially because the period just before the Industrial Revolution was, in many countries, unusually prosperous for the peasantry

That much is fair enough, as a short-term matter then.

Post reply on HN