Live data from Hacker News

Are Computers Making Society More Unequal?

newyorker.com

101–110 of 116 posts

Re: Are Computers Making Society More Unequal?

#101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the current situation were in fact a meritocracy, wouldn't we expect to see a lot more social mobility than we're seeing now? ( http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2013/06/13-facts-h... ) ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/17/social-immobility-c... )

Parent was comparing the meritocracy of today to the lack thereof centuries ago. I don't see where either of those links looks farther than a few decades back.

I was giving evidence against the claim that we live in a meritocracy.

Re: Are Computers Making Society More Unequal?

#102
post #82

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?

> If most people are envious of Bill Gates, does it follow that they have the right to take away his money and redistribute it? You're presupposing that there's such a thing as a "right" outside of a given social framework. (Cf. @rayiner's various comments on that subject.) If people are envious by nature, that's like the weather; to paraphrase Robert A. Heinlein, attempting to argue with the weather is seldom a prof…

This is the Elizabeth Warren that claimed to be native American?

Re: Are Computers Making Society More Unequal?

#103
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 exactly why either the negative income tax or the basic livable income are such great ideas. Like most of on HN, we're among those best positioned to be on the winning side of this inequality. I'm very much in favor of the approach Switzerland [0] has taken couple with its social services, because it's enough money and social support programs for the following things:

1) A roof over your head (not the best housing, but adequate)

2) Food in your belly (not great food, but enough)

3) A healthcare program (where you don't have to worry)

4) Basic education (so you know enough to learn further on your own)

5) Enough money left over to afford a computer and an internet connection (so you can learn on your own)

With all those needs met, everyone has what they need to do well for themselves. Those at the winning end of inequality know they've given everything necessary for others to join them if they make the effort. The winning end can reap further rewards by deserving it in the form of making the five line items above insanely efficient to deliver. Create cheaper, adequate housing, make food more plentiful and nutritious for cheaper, make healthcare more effective and cheaper, make basic education more effective and cheaper and make computers and internet access cheaper. The people who contribute the most to those goals deserve to live the best because they've done the most to contribute to the general welfare of all.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6532738

Re: Are Computers Making Society More Unequal?

#104

The amount of education required to make a decent living has increased, to the point that today you might need a graduate degree to make a middle class white collar living. Whereas 50 years ago, high school was enough. Pre-tractor farming days you hardly needed middle school. This is a significant mobility problem when you virtually have to crapshoot your life and hope you chose the right field. With increased automa…

If you wanted to work as a banker prior to the adoption of computers you'd need an education advanced enough to calculate amortization tables. Now you'd simply need to know where to put the numbers into a spreadsheet. Same for accountant. Attorneys can now run instant searches for relevant case law rather than spending time in a law library. Construction workers have instant access to information on a variety of mate…

The caveat is middle class living. If all those jobs were easily done or trainable, thereby removing the tendency towards credentialism, then by and large those workers should be interchangeable. That lowers the pay and forces the would-be middle class to specialize further in yet something else.

Re: Are Computers Making Society More Unequal?

#105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the same time, the amount of education required to make a decent living has increased, to the point that today you might need a graduate degree to make a middle class white collar living. Whereas years ago, high school was enough. Pre-tractor days you hardly needed middle school. This is a significant mobility problem when you virtually have to crapshoot your life and hope you chose the right field. With increased…

> Pre-tractor days you hardly needed middle school. Only because the teacher was built-in to the job, so to speak. I've taking up farming the last several years and have found it to be worlds more difficult than anything I've encountered in the tech industry. However, my father and grandfather have been working alongside me and are able to share their wisdom. I'm the seventh generation to work the land we own, and my…

I recognize your point about farming and its difficulties, but you are running the farm. Starting and running a business in any field is difficult and requires immense domain knowledge.

My point about occupational mobility is more about as an employee. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it easier to obtain work as a farmhand than as a software engineer, in terms of credentials and experience required?

There will be a definite decrease in occupational mobility if everyone had to train for years, paying for an education or not, just to be considered entry level.

There will be a definite decrease in social mobility if this kind of training is required for even mediocre paying jobs. At least as an engineer I can work for a few years, save money, and try to break out later.

Re: Are Computers Making Society More Unequal?

#106

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.

Labor is a complex commodity because it is linked to a human being. It's natural and right that the value of labor is influenced by supply and demand. However, value is also determined by the cost of production. What is the cost of production of the laborer? The very fact that labor is intrinsic to the laborer sets it apart from other commodities, and gives it additional social, cultural, and moral dimensions. Labor laws are designed to address these additional aspects. In the same way, treating labor as a pure commodity is dehumanizing and exploitative.

Re: Are Computers Making Society More Unequal?

#107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Pre-tractor days you hardly needed middle school. Only because the teacher was built-in to the job, so to speak. I've taking up farming the last several years and have found it to be worlds more difficult than anything I've encountered in the tech industry. However, my father and grandfather have been working alongside me and are able to share their wisdom. I'm the seventh generation to work the land we own, and my…

I recognize your point about farming and its difficulties, but you are running the farm. Starting and running a business in any field is difficult and requires immense domain knowledge. My point about occupational mobility is more about as an employee. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it easier to obtain work as a farmhand than as a software engineer, in terms of credentials and experience required? There will be a…

Running a business comes with its own challenges, but I was really only referring to the work directly related to farming. Maybe my brain is just better wired for computing tasks, or something, but it has always seemed so much easier to me.

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it easier to obtain work as a farmhand than as a software engineer, in terms of credentials and experience required?

You're going to have trouble finding a engineer's salary (it's possible) on the farm without tons of experience and a proven track record, but you are right that "green" employees are often hired for little pay with hopes of making them good at the job.

Farming is interesting is that it is highly constrained by time. When the crop is ready to come off, it must come off now. You cannot wait for six months to find the best employee like you often see in other fields. Most farmers would rather have the highly trained people – I think I hear about farm talent shortages more than I hear about tech talent shortages – but in the absence of talent, you have to hire somebody, else the work isn't going to get done at all.

Because of the time constraints, you're often left hiring anybody you can find and hope their lower pay makes up for the mistakes they will inevitably make. Engineering firms, on the other hand, would rather wait for someone who isn't going to make those mistakes. They tend to have that choice, farmers do not. If we had more skilled farmhands, so that farmers could actually be picky, I expect it would become far more difficult to find a job on the farm without skills though.

I see what you are saying though. I will note that educational requirements usually indicate that you have too many people competing for the same job. You'd need a PhD in agriculture to get a labouring job on the farm too if everyone wanted to be a farmer. Most people believe it is a horrible job though, so they run as far away as they can from it.

Re: Are Computers Making Society More Unequal?

#108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're leaving out what the other 9 castaways do. You don't mention the fact that 3 of these people are staying up at night guarding the camp from predators, ensuring the fish catcher gets a full nights rest. You are ignoring the person who knows how to properly filter and provide fresh water for drinking. You forget that someone else is always manning the fire, ensuring it's always going. He can easily set it again…

I'm not ignoring those people. I'm just assuming they trade net mending, fire, water, etc for fish, rather than taking them by force. Indeed, what's the point of catching lots of fish unless he can trade some for other things? He can't eat them all. "We'll mend your nets for 5 fish" is far different from "you have fish and we want them, so hand them over."

You understand taxes aren't just taking money for nothing, right? It is an exchange.

Re: Are Computers Making Society More Unequal?

#109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You are certainly lucky that your natural interests lead you to something lucrative There is certainly luck involved, but chalking all success up to fortunate nerd-dom is a simplification. Also consider the importance of avoiding pitfalls like drug abuse, crippling debt, and unexpected pregnancies. Also, millions of students do boring and pointless schoolwork every day to improve their grades so they can get into a…

Isn't Valley culture pretty much the opposite of what you describe, for better or worse? Classic engineering culture does have some of those features: work hard at school, get good grades, get into a good college, work hard in college, do an internship, graduate with a good GPA, get a good white-collar job. Valley startup culture seems to sort of hate that culture, though, and considers it a kind of obsolete old-peop…

And yet everybody hires from Stanford or CMU.

Re: Are Computers Making Society More Unequal?

#110
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…

A world with high inequality but low suffering would still be undesirable, as wealthy people would set the rules. They have the money to spend on lobbying and advertising. The poor would be fed, but still be powerless.

This is the crux of the matter. A world in which people have power over others, moreso where people want power over others, will always devolve into suffering. As per Lord Acton.. power corrupts.
Post reply on HN