Jobs Involving Routine Tasks Aren't Growing • Hacker News Board

Re: Jobs Involving Routine Tasks Aren't Growing

#111

Post by dang » Thu, Mar 17, 2016, 7:44 PM UTC

Chyzwar wrote: post #36

x5n1 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's easy to account for this in terms of education. Number of years of education should be added into the calculation for that. For instance for every year of schooling you get a a certain percentage more currency in terms of hours worked than someone with less schooling. And I am for all sorts of pilot programs to explore how else we can organize society. As for "productive societies", I don't know what that will a…

Go back to communism. My country tried that and ended really bad. People will work of their own gain only. Capitalism is greed of individuals, it is also only reason why people make progress. You are disconnected from real life. People like you with these ideas are dangerous.

Personal attacks are not allowed on HN, and ideological rants aren't ok either. Please don't do these things here.

Re: Jobs Involving Routine Tasks Aren't Growing

#112

Post by hnal943 » Thu, Mar 17, 2016, 8:21 PM UTC

mapt wrote: post #108

hnal943 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an unfounded assumption. There's lots of work that goes undone because it's cost prohibitive. Technology in this case increased overall value because it allowed Lynne to do something that no one was doing before.

If it was cost-prohibitive yesterday, why isn't it still cost-prohibitive today? Maybe it would be doable at a lower salary. Let's pay Lynne half as much as yesterday for this new job.

Because technology gave us levarage, and lowered the cost. Lynne's pay is ultimately set by the market. Lower her pay and see if she leaves to make more somewhere else.

Re: Jobs Involving Routine Tasks Aren't Growing

#113

Post by ktRolster » Fri, Mar 18, 2016, 6:47 AM UTC

iamcurious wrote: post #107

ktRolster wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need to have a person working full-time as a communicator. Your team can have a 'designated communicator,' and that role can even be swapped around so everyone learns to do it.

Then you are dynamically creating (and cutting I suspect) lots of communication channels. My suspicion is that for any large group something like that would require an extremely strong institution and lots of paper trail. This is a noble objective, but I'm not sure if it is always an option. By the way, what is the largest organization you can think that follows that swaps 'designated communicators' roles with no man…

  >By the way, what is the largest organization you can think that follows that swaps 'designated communicators' roles with no management?

Good question. I've worked at a fortune 500 company where people routinely ignored official communication channels in order to communicate with the people they needed. It becomes a lot harder to find the person you need at a large company and building relationships across departments becomes important.

It's rare in any organization that the people who have power are the same ones who get things done.