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

US Job Market Visualizer

karpathy.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 388 posts

Re: US Job Market Visualizer

#371

Post by 9rx »

valleyer wrote: post #346
9rx wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The BLS classifies them as different roles. In essence: Software developers plan, computer programmers implement. Which in many cases might be the same person, but it has always been true that one person can hold multiple jobs.

That's not a distinction that actually exists in the real world. This makes me wonder what other made-up distinctions they are claiming in industries I'm less familiar with.

I've seen it. I personally think it is ill-conceived and I am not sure why any business would actually want to function that way, but it definitely exists. Of software developers and computer programmers combined, only around 5% are considered to be computer programmers, so it is already recognized in the data as something fairly unusual.

Re: US Job Market Visualizer

#372

Post by jvanderbot »

ForHackernews wrote: post #362
jvanderbot wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that the market is big , and capturing a small part of it would make these companies wildly successful; and there's no need to make unemployment inevitable - I think this diminishes the AI Doom story quite a bit.

It absolutely diminishes the AI Doom story, but it also diminishes the AI Will Be The Golden Goose story, they are two sides of the same coin. The AI companies can only capture that surplus if there are not competitive substitutes available. In the same way that Amazon gets rich taking ElasticSearch for free and charging for hosting, Amazon will take free models and charge to host them. The companies building frontie…

I'd say 20% productivity growth with no increased salaries is a golden goose.

This comes from offloading 20% to AI as discussed, and still working same hours. It ignores transaction costs, incomplete rollout, but is a ceiling for long term growth in AI-friendly sectors.

Re: US Job Market Visualizer

#373

Post by YCpedohaven »

lbreakjai wrote: post #334
RivieraKid wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If existing capital starts to generate excessive profits, more capital will be built, which will require human labor and will make the original capital less valuable.

In theory. In practice, the excessive capital of the incumbent allows them to price out or buy the budding competition, or the legislators, so as to protect their position. The natural state of a capitalist system is the monopoly.

[dead]

Re: US Job Market Visualizer

#374

Post by YCpedohaven »

exhumet wrote: post #226
treyfitty wrote: post #4

Data is coming from BLS. Their data lags the true state of affairs, and their growth projections are never reliable. Remember when they touted from 2000-2010 that Actuaries are the hottest growing field with the best forward looking outlook? BLS forward looking guidance means nothing when technology revolutionizes the nature of work.

lol i always wondered how actuary ever crossed the radar of my partner in college and this must have been it. hey they just finished up their FCAS cert and they are riding quite high and quite comfy. but it is for sure a very small pool of people just due to the immense work needed to get that point.

[dead]

Re: US Job Market Visualizer

#375

Post by jvanderbot »

vannevar wrote: post #281
UncleMeat wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bosses already hate their workers and are mad that they have to pay them a cent. Would they really accept paying another 10% on their wages to make their workers 10% more productive? When there is significant active competition between the providers of core models and huge pressure to reduce prices?

In the US, since the 1970s virtually all technologically-driven productivity gains have been captured by the top 10% (who own 90% of all public equity). (See, e.g., https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ .) So no, little or none of the AI productivity gains will go to workers, barring significant changes in public policy like universal basic income and the massive tax increases necessary to implement it.

What productivity gains should go to the workers? I'm happy to collect my current salary + the usual raises to date, in exchange for transitioning my job to increasing amounts of AI use if required. If I lived like people in the 1970s I could have retired after 10-20 years in the industry, easily. Sooner if I prioritized money. My standard of living has grown immensely to the current level which I'm happy to maintain. I formerly shared a 3 bedroom leaky house with 5 dudes by the train tracks.

Do the productivity gains from stack overflow "belong" to the workers? Do the productivity gains from better google search or wikipedia? If I want to charge by the product instead of hour - I can leave and start consulting or contracting.

How should those productivity gains go to employees? I own equity in this company, and most others I have formerly worked for. I have free access to public equity markets, tax subsidized 401k and IRA plans which have historically enriched 100s of millions.

I've been through layoffs where I didn't have to take a day of reduced salary or unemployment because of severances nor did I experience a single day of health care coverage lapse b/c of same, or b/c of spouse's insurance or public marketplace.

My situation is not unique to software engineers in the USA. The public market, cheap/subsidized retirement plans + equity bonuses have effectively seized a good portion of the means of production for the workers, allowing consistent enrichment from expansion of industry. And corporate america for all it's evils has produced the entirety of the social safety net that I've used after I graduated, and that is while changing jobs basically whenever I wanted (plus one time I didn't)

Guys, I don't see it yet. Maybe I'm dumb, but it's not here yet and there is a case to be optimistic that everyone is ignoring. Prepare for the worst, but once prepared, banish it from your mind.

Re: US Job Market Visualizer

#376

Post by vharuck »

conductr wrote: post #260
dbgrman wrote: post #208

Cool stuff. would be nice to have a color blind mode. I literally can't distinguish the red from green in this visualization.

Curious as someone that doesn't experience the issue but assumes that your system Accessibility settings, maybe high-contrast, would be useful instead of expecting individual sites to tailor their color palette... does that not work?

People who make data visualizations should try to learn the "rules of thumb" to not confuse or exclude readers:

1) Avoid contrasting red/green and blue/yellow, as these are common colorblind pairs.

2) Pick shades that still look different when shown in grayscale.

3) All bar charts should have 0 at one end.

4) Please no 3-D pie charts.

To find good color palettes, check out https://colorbrewer2.org

Re: US Job Market Visualizer

#377

Post by ForHackernews »

jvanderbot wrote: post #372
ForHackernews wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It absolutely diminishes the AI Doom story, but it also diminishes the AI Will Be The Golden Goose story, they are two sides of the same coin. The AI companies can only capture that surplus if there are not competitive substitutes available. In the same way that Amazon gets rich taking ElasticSearch for free and charging for hosting, Amazon will take free models and charge to host them. The companies building frontie…

I'd say 20% productivity growth with no increased salaries is a golden goose. This comes from offloading 20% to AI as discussed, and still working same hours. It ignores transaction costs, incomplete rollout, but is a ceiling for long term growth in AI-friendly sectors.

I feel like we're talking past each other: a magic 20% productivity boost (or 100%, or 500%) for your company is worth nothing if your competitors all get the same magic dust.

Re: US Job Market Visualizer

#378

Post by jvanderbot »

ForHackernews wrote: post #377
jvanderbot wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say 20% productivity growth with no increased salaries is a golden goose. This comes from offloading 20% to AI as discussed, and still working same hours. It ignores transaction costs, incomplete rollout, but is a ceiling for long term growth in AI-friendly sectors.

I feel like we're talking past each other: a magic 20% productivity boost (or 100%, or 500%) for your company is worth nothing if your competitors all get the same magic dust.

I can be wrong without us talking past eachother. I re examine my assumptions on this every month or so. Right now, I see growth, but that might change soon.

Re: US Job Market Visualizer

#379

Post by conductr »

vharuck wrote: post #376
conductr wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Curious as someone that doesn't experience the issue but assumes that your system Accessibility settings, maybe high-contrast, would be useful instead of expecting individual sites to tailor their color palette... does that not work?

People who make data visualizations should try to learn the "rules of thumb" to not confuse or exclude readers: 1) Avoid contrasting red/green and blue/yellow, as these are common colorblind pairs. 2) Pick shades that still look different when shown in grayscale. 3) All bar charts should have 0 at one end. 4) Please no 3-D pie charts. To find good color palettes, check out https://colorbrewer2.org

Everyone is creating visuals, not just data scientists or designers that probably should know these rules.

I generally am against people who have expectations of how they want others to communicate. Be it colors, pronouns, whatever- you’re just setting yourself up for disappointment and it’s not out of malice so just move on or find your own way to deal with what people are putting out there.

Post reply on HN