Rolling the ladder up behind us • Hacker News Board

Re: Rolling the ladder up behind us

#101

Post by mattgreenrocks » Fri, Jun 20, 2025, 7:20 PM UTC

stego-tech wrote: post #50

Xe's stuff is always excellent, and this is no different. What's disappointing is the amount of energy and effort wasted by people to come into the comments and espouse their desire to give up on addressing any of their concerns. "It's just how things are." "That's what generates profit." "If that's what the market demands, who are we to judge?" "Guess we do nothing." We've all heard it before. We get it , so many HN…

> We get it, so many HN and Tech folks have thrown in the towel and given up on changing anything within their own lives, or within the lives of others.

It’s hilarious to read such defeatist takes on the current state of things on a site called Hacker News. The classical definition of a hacker was someone who wielded tech to circumvent power imbalances in whatever form.

Now I fear we have plenty of technologists that are happy to use tech to further cement and centralize existing power structures. IMO, this has been brewing for the past ten years or so, where technologists wrongly believe they have an in to this power just because they work for a FAANG.

You are labor. Where you work does not matter. So long as you need to work, you are labor. And there’s nothing wrong with that! Doctors are finding out this same lesson.

The way out is to build ventures that don’t involve the capital class. Autonomy and independence are worthy goals to strive for.

Re: Rolling the ladder up behind us

#102

Post by specialist » Fri, Jun 20, 2025, 7:24 PM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #26

dontlaugh wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not what the Luddites wanted. They praised the technology itself and recognised it would save a lot of time. But they also recognised that they the workers wouldn’t reap any of those benefits, they’d just lose their jobs. Do you really think capitalists would choose to shorten the working day with no loss of pay as productivity increases? If so, you are incredibly naive.

The workers did reap the benefits. The Law of Supply and Demand ensures it. 1.1% of the US labor force works at minimum wage jobs. When wages are raised by the government, job losses happen. 16,000 to 36,000 people lost their jobs when California raised the minimum wage for fast food workers. > Do you really think capitalists would choose to shorten the working day with no loss of pay as productivity increases? Durin…

Now include profit (surplus) in your analysis.

Wage grow has not kept pace with corporate profitability. Why?

Re: Rolling the ladder up behind us

#103

Post by WalterBright » Fri, Jun 20, 2025, 7:32 PM UTC

AnIrishDuck wrote: post #87

WalterBright wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I lived through the gas shortages. I remember the day the gas lines ended. They never returned in the 45 years since, despite all sorts of wars and global crises and exploding oil refineries and Hooties shooting at tankers. All gone literally overnight with the stroke of Reagan's pen. The gas shortages never existed before Nixon imposed price and allocation controls on gas, either. (Except during WW2, where gas short…

Well first, we have this: > The Jimmy Carter administration began a phased deregulation of oil prices on April 5, 1979, when the average price of crude oil was US$15.85 per barrel ($100/m3). So, the process wasn't really an instant wave of a wand, or stroke of a pen. We also have this: > Starting with the Iranian revolution, the price of crude oil rose to $39.50 per barrel ($248/m3) over the next 12 months (its all-t…

All true. Why didn't gas lines ever appear after 1980? We had crises like 9/11 and the pandemic - but no gas shortages.

Prices did go up and down, but gas was always available.

Re: Rolling the ladder up behind us

#104

Post by youworkwepay » Fri, Jun 20, 2025, 7:33 PM UTC

The value of vibe coding isn't that it writes good or sustainable code. It's that you can build a sufficiently non-shitty prototype of a concept as a non IT expert to validate the use case and secure proper assistance.

From a change leadership perspective, walking in the door with a shitty prototype beats pitching vaporware every day of the week and twice on Sundays. And the fact amateurs can deliver (basic, crappy) "things" without budget accelerates growth.

My first projects were 80% copied off Github and some intro tutorials. Know what? They still work. We banked seven figures off of them so far...

Re: Rolling the ladder up behind us

#105

Post by burnt-resistor » Fri, Jun 20, 2025, 7:33 PM UTC

3 things.

0. The people must take their governments back from corporate technofeudal overlords.

1. Society must shift away from lionizing unbounded capitalism.

2. Workers must form employee-owned co-ops for more stability and better morale and share profits of their labor more fairly rather than extracting maximum amounts for the ownership class that will fire them whenever it suits them.

Re: Rolling the ladder up behind us

#106

Post by whatshisface » Fri, Jun 20, 2025, 7:34 PM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #89

whatshisface wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't every nationwide firm engage in central economic planning?

Yup. But they have competitors!

It sounds like the issue is competitors or the absence thereof more so than central allocation based on market forecasts being possible or impossible.

Re: Rolling the ladder up behind us

#107

Post by dontlaugh » Fri, Jun 20, 2025, 7:38 PM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #26

dontlaugh wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not what the Luddites wanted. They praised the technology itself and recognised it would save a lot of time. But they also recognised that they the workers wouldn’t reap any of those benefits, they’d just lose their jobs. Do you really think capitalists would choose to shorten the working day with no loss of pay as productivity increases? If so, you are incredibly naive.

The workers did reap the benefits. The Law of Supply and Demand ensures it. 1.1% of the US labor force works at minimum wage jobs. When wages are raised by the government, job losses happen. 16,000 to 36,000 people lost their jobs when California raised the minimum wage for fast food workers. > Do you really think capitalists would choose to shorten the working day with no loss of pay as productivity increases? Durin…

Whenever I see you post on HN I’m reminded about “don’t meet your heroes”. You are so politically naive and indoctrinated for someone so smart.

Re: Rolling the ladder up behind us

#108

Post by WalterBright » Fri, Jun 20, 2025, 7:42 PM UTC

brooke2k wrote: post #97

WalterBright wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> mismanagement and poor planning can happen in both the public and private sectors Absolutely correct. But public regulation is quite resistant to course correction. Private companies have to face competitors and adapt or fail. > The US healthcare system is just one fantastic example of the private sector absolutely failing to deliver even a bare minimum standard of service The US healthcare system is massively regu…

Public regulation also course-corrects, it just does so through democracy rather than competition. I would argue that democracy is a superior method in most instances, because its motives are driven by the motives of the population as a whole, whereas capitalist competition is ultimately driven by exactly one thing: profit for the capital owners. Where we agree I think is in the assertion that United States governmen…

Democracy cannot adapt efficiently to crises. For example, we elect a President every 4 years. You've got a long wait. A company can adapt overnight.

> capitalist competition is ultimately driven by exactly one thing: profit for the capital owners.

Absolutely correct. And competition is what drives prices relentlessly downwards.

The democratically elected government in the 70s that tried to manage the nation's gas prices and allocations with the best of intentions failed miserably.

Democracy also created the FAA, which used to regulate airline schedules, routes, and fares. Having lived through that era, too, I can attest how costly and inefficient that was. Air fares are amazingly low since, and the scheduling is very tight and efficient at placing airplanes where the people want to use them.

> this is not because central planning is inherently bad

Nobody has ever managed to make it work. Consider rent control. Endless variations of it are implemented, and all produce the "unintended" side effects of higher prices and shortages.

Re: Rolling the ladder up behind us

#109

Post by WalterBright » Fri, Jun 20, 2025, 7:45 PM UTC

fragmede wrote: post #93

WalterBright wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I merely point out that economic history shows that economic freedom works better than any other system. Besides, I enjoy debate, like other people enjoy playing football. If you don't, why are you here?

With all due respect, and I mean that sincerely as you've accomplished far more than I have, you aren't here for debate. Your viewpoint is stuck in the cold war mentality where Soviet communism was a failure (it did, but that doesn't mean that everything they touched was bad) and America and its brand of Free Market capitalism is perfect (it isn't) and responding to your comments is like talking to a brick wall for a…

All attempts at communism failed. Did you know that there have historically been 20,000 communes founded in the US? I wonder what happened to them!

I never said American free markets were perfect. They certainly aren't. But they are very successful.

> responding to your comments is like talking to a brick wall

I could say the same of the people I respond to! I don't expect to change anyone's mind here. The average stay at a commune is about 2 years, after which the members leave, cured of the notion that communism is better. I encourage you to join one.

Re: Rolling the ladder up behind us

#110

Post by Aurornis » Fri, Jun 20, 2025, 7:47 PM UTC

asmxyz wrote: post #19

WalterBright wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The owning class will use it to reduce payroll costs Of course. That's been going on since the invention of the plow. That's why today we can do more interesting things than turn over the earth with a pointy stick all day every day. > economic democracy, where average people regain control over their lives History shows us that this inevitably means people lose all control over their lives, because the state will m…

There are _other options_! You're argument is that the only two alternatives are that the ruling class and owning class be separate groups of people, or the same group of people. And either way the labor class if F'ed. You're right that having the ruling class and the owning class being the _same people_ is terrible. That's what we're living in right now! But what about the labor class being the owning class? What if…

> But what about the labor class being the owning class? What if Amazon was owned by the people who work at Amazon? Instead of Bezos?

I wonder how many people who repeat things like this know that Bezos owns less than 10% of Amazon. About 2/3rds of Amazon is owned by institutional investors, much of which is in turn owned by individuals in their 401ks and other retirement plans. So "the people" own more of Amazon than Jeff Bezos already.

If you're implying that the government should confiscate Jeff Bezos' personal ownership stake in the business he created and redistribute it to other people, that's a very different topic. It's in the realm of fantasy, not reality, so I don't consider it very interesting. At minimum, it should be noted that if the government gets into the business of confiscating shares from people, the value of those shares will plummet as investors move their money into safer investments, so it wouldn't be a simple numerical wealth transfer from Bezos to others.

Regardless, there's nothing stopping people from getting together and starting an employee-owned collective company that enters the market. They can compete in the market and try to hire away talent from the other corporations.