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

Andy Grove’s Warning to Silicon Valley

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 266 posts

Re: Andy Grove’s Warning to Silicon Valley

#161

Post by Houshalter »

lgieron wrote: post #95
tw04 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the absolutely embarrassing state of our country, hole diggers are exactly what we need. Legitimately go pay someone to dig holes all day and lay single-mode fiber to every home. Pay them to turn a wrench replacing support brackets on a bridge. The Works program was the single most successful employer in this country's history and we replaced it with welfare because "unemployment is low and we don't need it any…

Today, the ditch digging s done with small excavators, not with hordes of guys with shovels...

This is a good point. Technology replaces labor with capital. I remember reading controversy over the stimulus program, that hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent for every job created. Those people would have been much better off if the money went directly to them, instead of indirectly through jobs programs. But that's not politically popular (with the right.)

Alternatively the government could subsidize wages. Agree to pay x% of the wages for certain industries. Which is basically what we already do extensively with tax breaks for companies that create jobs. But that's also not politically popular (with the left.)

As automation replaces more and more of the unskilled workforce, we should just accept it and adopt a basic income.

Re: Andy Grove’s Warning to Silicon Valley

#162

Post by zanny »

morgante wrote: post #122
1stop wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it doesn't. These people wouldn't just hoard their money because there is no ad telling them what to buy... They'd just be exercising their own agency, rather then cokes, or nikes.

They might often buy an inferior product instead. If there were no advertising, not many people would know about—let alone buy—video games. But dollar for dollar video games are much better for them than alternatives like drugs.

Advertisers have no incentive to promote better products than what the competition offers, they only have incentive to get people to buy their inferior products that provide them better margins than the competition.

> not many people would know about—let alone buy—video games

So you are saying in the absence of manipulative ads, kids would be consuming drugs rather than games. I highly doubt that. And from personal experience, my brother is a Minecraft addicted nutter because of peers pushing him towards it, not advertising. I've never seen ads for Minecraft, yet it is one of the most successful video game properties ever.

Re: Andy Grove’s Warning to Silicon Valley

#163

Post by hifier »

robbiep wrote: post #138
hueving wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You cannot pay a cost you impose on others with self induced suffering. I cannot steal and break my own toe to "pay it back". That justification is nonsense.

I think you missed the point of the quote: Orwell is saying that to see someone suffer is in line with our ethics; someone who suffers can be ethically reasoned to have earned what dues come their way. Compare the beggar in orwell's quote, if you will, to the injured war veteran who benefits from a fundraiser. He has suffered, so we consider it worthy for him to benefit through community actions. Why is he worthy of…

No. The veteran is worthy because in his suffering, he provided value to the community.

Re: Andy Grove’s Warning to Silicon Valley

#164

Post by mozumder »

1stop wrote: post #159
mozumder wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't buy something, and hold off on spending, then the GDP goes down, as the velocity of money slows down. If 1 dollar is spent 5 times a year, that economy has a higher GDP than when that 1 dollar is spent 4 times a year. Advertising makes sure that money is spent quickly, to increase the GDP by increasing the velocity of money in an economy. If you get rid of advertising, you slow down the economy.

You have astatement A and conclusion C but no B step. Do people spend money without advertising? I would say, yes they do. People have intrinsic wants and needs. Why would I so fulfilling them, because of a lack of extrinsic wants and needs? Edit: also aren't you just trying to optimise to what is measured. GDP goes up, and that's beneficial because? Greenspan says so?

People spend more money with advertising. The velocity of money increases. If you believe it doesn't, then you should probably tell that to the trillion dollar industry.

I get that it's not what you want to hear, but that's your problem to deal with, not mine.

"Wishing and hoping" that advertising doesn't work, doesn't actually make it so. Just because you don't like something, doesn't mean it doesn't work.

Re: Andy Grove’s Warning to Silicon Valley

#165

Post by mozumder »

floatrock wrote: post #98
mozumder wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The entire global economy since the beginning of time is about consuming. What makes you think it would fall apart at all?

Exponential growth. There's a myth out there that we are unconstrained by physical resources. And it has largely been true "since the beginning of time". But that time is quickly coming to an end -- the next big generation shift will be the acceptance of a resource-constrained world imho. Look at meat consumption. It takes something like 10x as much energy to grow a calorie of meat as it does a calorie of vegetables.…

There is no limit to consumption or available resources.

Re: Andy Grove’s Warning to Silicon Valley

#166

Post by hifier »

robbiep wrote: post #138
hueving wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You cannot pay a cost you impose on others with self induced suffering. I cannot steal and break my own toe to "pay it back". That justification is nonsense.

I think you missed the point of the quote: Orwell is saying that to see someone suffer is in line with our ethics; someone who suffers can be ethically reasoned to have earned what dues come their way. Compare the beggar in orwell's quote, if you will, to the injured war veteran who benefits from a fundraiser. He has suffered, so we consider it worthy for him to benefit through community actions. Why is he worthy of…

It's disgusting to be comparing a veteran's suffering to a beggar's.

Re: Andy Grove’s Warning to Silicon Valley

#167

Post by littletimmy »

narrator wrote: post #157
littletimmy wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you elaborate on your last paragraph please? What is the fundamental cause in your opinion? Or are you saying it's like turtles all the way down?

The last paragraph is just speculation as to what they might find based on some investment research I've done while traveling in various developing countries. My speculation is that land prices in America are vastly inflated because there is so much credit available to buy them while in developing countries there is very little credit available for borrowing against land. In Argentina and most of Latin America for ex…

But then it is not land prices itself but rather the availability of the credit that seems to be the fundamental disparity, isn't it? And you could question why there's such a big difference in credit availability, which comes down to accumulated capital and to productivity/technology. Not to disparage your argument, but aren't you just saying more productive/advanced regions have more expensive stuff?

Re: Andy Grove’s Warning to Silicon Valley

#168

Post by MicroBerto »

cleandreams wrote: post #46

I think the rise of Trump reflects the reality of a declining middle class and the overall problem of political stability in the face of declining opportunity and economic security for most people. In business it is easier to focus on the short term win. Corporations have profited from being stateless, from offshoring and outsourcing. But it remains to be seen what the long term cost will be. I suspect the backlash w…

We already HAVE seen what the long term cost is. It's great for corporations, shareholders, and board members, yet terrible for the middle class, and thus a net negative on the country as a whole.

It will only continue. That is the "long term effect".

This guy is basically telling everyone from the grave to vote Trump, or Trump-like economic policies... but never utter such a thing around these parts!

Re: Andy Grove’s Warning to Silicon Valley

#169

Post by kspaans »

narrator wrote: post #157
littletimmy wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you elaborate on your last paragraph please? What is the fundamental cause in your opinion? Or are you saying it's like turtles all the way down?

The last paragraph is just speculation as to what they might find based on some investment research I've done while traveling in various developing countries. My speculation is that land prices in America are vastly inflated because there is so much credit available to buy them while in developing countries there is very little credit available for borrowing against land. In Argentina and most of Latin America for ex…

And, you know wages are way lower in those developing countries with cheap land. You may want to adjust for average and median wages when comparing the cost of living in various countries.

Re: Andy Grove’s Warning to Silicon Valley

#170

Post by georgemcbay »

refurb wrote: post #158
amorphid wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a big country! When you get towards completing a single project, I bet there will always be something else that needs doing.

Like an airport in a town of 2,000 that nobody uses, but ensure the Congressman will get reelected? I could only imagine the abuse with a gov't directed jobs program!

And things like that don't happen in the private sector?

Corruption is a human problem, not a government or corporate problem.

Post reply on HN