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

181–190 of 266 posts

Re: Andy Grove’s Warning to Silicon Valley

#181

Post by jernfrost »

ArkyBeagle wrote: post #40
zanny wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there is a significant confluence among those who find prosperity and purpose through jobs to conflate the concepts of employment and purpose. That to not have a job is to not have a purpose, and vice versa. If we had a planned economy built around peak employment, we would have many fewer entrepreneurs and many more, as you say, hole diggers. Socially we already do that. We have created a gargantuan advertis…

I'm not sure it's an ... axiomatic ( meaning just made up out of whole cloth ) assumption that doing meaningful things for other people is part of a path to happiness. It may have the advantage of being true. It does not mean that it's the only condition for happiness ( it is necessary but not sufficient ) , but I know of no good assault on this idea. Adam Smith's "to be loved and to be lovely" exists, and is deeply…

Media and advertising isn't quite the same. There is a clear value in people writing articles in newspapers about what is going on around us. Advertisement OTOH is frequently of little use.

And it is perfectly possible to deal with advertisement/media through laws and regulations.

E.g. I find that where I live in Norway, much of the informative and quality media exist almost exclusively due to government policy. Either you got the state run broadcaster or quality newspapers which get economic support from government.

The quality newspaper typically don't make a lot of money because they are not shameless sell outs to advertisement and pop culture.

Now for entertaining movies I am happy about the purely commercially driven TV channels, but it is also painstakingly clear that you can run well balanced and insightful journalism easily on primarily profit driven media.

Re: Andy Grove’s Warning to Silicon Valley

#182

Post by jernfrost »

afarrell wrote: post #25

There is a conflict of values to consider here: Do we we place a higher value on preventing relative poverty in the United States or extreme poverty around the world? """Poverty rates started to collapse towards the end of the 20th century largely because developing-country growth accelerated, from an average annual rate of 4.3% in 1960-2000 to 6% in 2000-10... China is responsible for three-quarters of the achieveme…

While that is a fair consideration, for practical reasons there are very real dangers to ignoring inequality within the borders of a country. With great inequality history has given us many examples of sever political instability leading to violent revolutions and sometimes wars.

It will not benefit the rest of the world if say the US, collapsed due to severe internal conflict. There has been studies showing that high inequality actually hampers economic growth. Thus inequality in the US is not necessarily to the benefit of poor people elsewhere.

Re: Andy Grove’s Warning to Silicon Valley

#183

Post by majewsky »

jernfrost wrote: post #177
atom-morgan wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And when they're done? What about the jobs!

While a job might not produce anything of value to a customer, I think it is often forgotten that a job also has the dual purpose of skills training. People doing "useless" jobs might acquire the skills to do other and more useful jobs in the future. Keeping people unemployed has a high cost in the form of loss of skills over time, mental health etc. If you don't keep things going you might risk losing some people fo…

> you might risk losing some people forever as their skills become so obsolete

This is likely why I'll likely never be able convince myself to take a break from programming until retirement.

Unless, of course, today's chatbots evolve to write code better than we do. Or at least cheaper.

Re: Andy Grove’s Warning to Silicon Valley

#184

Post by Nutmog »

This makes no sense from a global perspective. Why was Andy keen to reduce job growth in Asia and also reduce technology growth in the whole world? Did he think Americans were more deserving than Asians? That should have been clearly unethical from a humanitarian point of view considering the higher poverty levels that are still present in Asia.

If local=better then perhaps he should have focused on job growth in California and worried about companies that export their growth phase jobs and expertise to other parts of the US - especially underdeveloped parts which won't contribute much back except cheap labor. That's also costing Californians their jobs. What makes Iowa or Arkansas more important than a booming megacity in China?

Re: Andy Grove’s Warning to Silicon Valley

#185

Post by majewsky »

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!

I would much rather have another airport built than another prison.

Re: Andy Grove’s Warning to Silicon Valley

#186

Post by Nutmog »

Houshalter wrote: post #161
lgieron wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wage…

Be careful, industry subsidies can violate WTO rules and get export markets closed off. America has treaties with lots of countries promising not to do that. Those other countries also promise not to do that. If America violates it, their trading partners will too and the global economy will be hurt, including America.

Re: Andy Grove’s Warning to Silicon Valley

#187

Post by refurb »

georgemcbay wrote: post #170
refurb wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If a company builds something useless, it's not my money, so I don't care. Gov't projects spend tax money, so I care.

Re: Andy Grove’s Warning to Silicon Valley

#188

Post by mistermann »

mozumder wrote: post #145
mistermann wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't watch ads and yet I still buy things. Granted, not as much as if I watched ads I'm sure.

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.

> If you get rid of advertising, you slow down the economy.

I can agree with that, but I wonder how much it matters, in different scenarios. For example, if instead of hiring someone to cut my lawn (increasing GDP), I cut my lawn myself. Since GDP is lower, is the world therefore a worse place than it might have been?

Re: Andy Grove’s Warning to Silicon Valley

#189

Post by mistermann »

jcoffland wrote: post #109
mistermann wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does it require growth, and why does that growth have to be "unchecked", whatever that means. I don't see why one person producing one thing and consuming those produced by others is unworkable....or is that not consumerism?

It's a pretty weak argument when you just pretend not to understand the language. There's no problem with consuming goods. That's necessary, but there are limits to what needs to be consumed. When the economy requires more consumption than is needed for its members to sustain a healthy lifestyle then it needs to be checked or at least not actively pushed further by government policies aimed specifically at increasing…

"When the economy requires more consumption than is needed for its members to sustain a healthy lifestyle"

I'm not just pretending, I genuinely don't understand what that means. It kind of sounds like you think consumption beyond bare sustenance is bad and needs to be checked somehow? If I'm understanding correctly, then I disagree with you.

Re: Andy Grove’s Warning to Silicon Valley

#190

Post by majewsky »

mozumder wrote: post #145
mistermann wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't watch ads and yet I still buy things. Granted, not as much as if I watched ads I'm sure.

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.

> If you get rid of advertising, you slow down the economy.

I still don't understand why a slower economy is a bad thing. Poverty and starvation is definitely a bad thing, climate change is definitely a bad thing, but a slow economy?

Post reply on HN