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

Hiring Is Obsolete (2005)

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 54 posts

Re: Hiring Is Obsolete (2005)

#41

Post by faraday2211 »

52-6F-62 wrote: post #29
faraday2211 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To a certain extent i agree with your statement. But if young people dont’ explore and develop skills early then they will lose later in life. Instead of “living” they should probably explore wether art or tech or construction or whatever is more suitable for them personally. Then once they have a career they cam travel and live as they have the skills to support that life. If you look at instagram then you will see…

There are few guarantees the skills you develop today will mean much to the market by the time you can afford to do any living. Ten years ago learning to drive a truck meant a long-term stable career, even if it's not the most glamourous. Today, we're discussing the short-term viability of automating that shipping system. Five years ago in Alberta, getting into a trade that was in demand in the oil industry meant a l…

That is partially correct. Developing the skill to drive a truck at an early age gives you the skills to operate vehicles at a later stage, and that is transferrable knowledge. Not to mention work place interaction skills, and time management. In terms of software, indeed repetitive tasks can be automated, but 100% of development never will be.

Re: Hiring Is Obsolete (2005)

#42

Post by keiferski »

bluGill wrote: post #40
keiferski wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The overwhelming majority of jobs in the modern economy have nothing to do with basic needs. Most of them simply exist to feed the consumerist/financial complex.

The overwhelming majority of people want more than the basics. They don't just want a roof over their head, they want a nice roof - one they can stand up under, maybe with a kitchen, running water, separate rooms for their various games... They don't want to eat just rice and beans, they want more. You are one of them: if you were not you wouldn't be reading this forum.

All of the things you mentioned can still be categorized as "the basics."

This forum is a particularly bad example to use, considering that it's more-or-less built on technology that is over two decades old (i.e. an online forum.)

Re: Hiring Is Obsolete (2005)

#43

Post by AnimalMuppet »

jillesvangurp wrote: post #27

I would say hiring is dead for a different reason: permanent employment is becoming a meaningless deal in many places. Especially in the US, you can be out on the street in 15 minutes with little or no protection against that. It's a very one sided deal where you shovel shit in exchange for a lower income. So, people treat their employers as customers and have less reservations about firing their customer. The averag…

You seem to be complaining that 1) you can be let go at any time and 2) there's a shortage of talent, so people can switch jobs easily. Both can certainly be true, but it seems somewhat contradictory to complain about both at the same time.

Re: Hiring Is Obsolete (2005)

#44

Post by keiferski »

UserIsUnused wrote: post #39
keiferski wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The overwhelming majority of jobs in the modern economy have nothing to do with basic needs. Most of them simply exist to feed the consumerist/financial complex.

That's a different issue. But consumerism is needed to provide something of value back to those that gave their time to get you food and a roof.

Food and roofs didn't exist prior to 20th-century marketing and consumer-targeting psychology?

Re: Hiring Is Obsolete (2005)

#45

Post by bluGill »

keiferski wrote: post #42
bluGill wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The overwhelming majority of people want more than the basics. They don't just want a roof over their head, they want a nice roof - one they can stand up under, maybe with a kitchen, running water, separate rooms for their various games... They don't want to eat just rice and beans, they want more. You are one of them: if you were not you wouldn't be reading this forum.

All of the things you mentioned can still be categorized as "the basics." This forum is a particularly bad example to use, considering that it's more-or-less built on technology that is over two decades old (i.e. an online forum.)

What are the basics. Every time you expand the definition - as you just did - it takes more labor time to make it. You can put the line between basics and luxury anyplace you want, but the amount of labor it takes to make basic society possible goes changes with each change.

Re: Hiring Is Obsolete (2005)

#46

Post by username90 »

tomgp wrote: post #16
username90 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I wasn't expecting Paul Graham to recite orthodox Marxism. This paragraph is only missing the word "exploited", because he's effectively saying that young good workers are undervalued because a large employer makes more money from them than they are paid. No, the point was that at a big company you get paid the average value of the work your and your peers does, while when you work for yourself you get paid the val…

"the average value of the work you and your peers do"... minus whtever the bosses feel they can cream off the top.

The boss is a part of the team.

Re: Hiring Is Obsolete (2005)

#47

Post by username90 »

shantly wrote: post #32
tomgp wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"the average value of the work you and your peers do"... minus whtever the bosses feel they can cream off the top.

Yeah you get paid the average cost of having that work done , not the average value at all . That may well be 10x what you're paid for the work, in some positions.

The surplus value wasn't provided by you though, the people who built the company added it. I know that I wouldn't make enough contributions to warrant my current salary if I worked for most other companies than the one I work for now, so they actually give me more money than the value I bring. Sounds like a pretty good deal to me.

Re: Hiring Is Obsolete (2005)

#48

Post by dkersten »

mrfusion wrote: post #19
dkersten wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That last point makes me very wary of using a startups services these days. Too many startups fail and out of the ones that don’t, a huge amount get shutdown after acquisition. Too risky. I’ve also experienced a number of cases in my own work where pretty great services were passed over for exactly those reasons. As somebody who has founded startups in the past, this makes me sad because it means my next attempt will…

It’s counterintuitive but to counter this fear as a startup make it really simple for your customers to get their data out of your service. And advertise that fact heavily.

That’s a good point, yes. I definitely feel more at ease when I know there’s a migration path should it become necessary.

Re: Hiring Is Obsolete (2005)

#49

Post by cryptica »

onion2k wrote: post #6
cryptica wrote: post #4

I think investing in 20 year olds is a bad idea because at that age, they haven't had the time to properly fail. This makes them arrogant and unwilling to listen to advice from older people who are smarter but not financially successful.

I think investing in 20 year olds is a bad idea because at that age, they haven't had the time to properly fail. You're right on average but investors aren't looking for average people to invest in. I was on an accelerator with a very talented founder who had started a company, built it up to something significant, and subsequently cashed out before he was 20. Some 20 year olds are on their second or third business b…

If a 20 year old succeeds. They got lucky. There are no special skills needed.

Even if they are serial entrepreneurs. Once you have the right social network, it doesn't really matter what you do, you will succeed. Anyone who was a friend of Mark Zuckerberg during its growth phase could have been a serial entrepreneur and millionaire many times over even without trying. Heck, the artist who painted their wall made hundreds of millions.

Re: Hiring Is Obsolete (2005)

#50

Post by onion2k »

cryptica wrote: post #49
onion2k wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think investing in 20 year olds is a bad idea because at that age, they haven't had the time to properly fail. You're right on average but investors aren't looking for average people to invest in. I was on an accelerator with a very talented founder who had started a company, built it up to something significant, and subsequently cashed out before he was 20. Some 20 year olds are on their second or third business b…

If a 20 year old succeeds. They got lucky. There are no special skills needed. Even if they are serial entrepreneurs. Once you have the right social network, it doesn't really matter what you do, you will succeed. Anyone who was a friend of Mark Zuckerberg during its growth phase could have been a serial entrepreneur and millionaire many times over even without trying. Heck, the artist who painted their wall made hun…

I think it's fair to say no deep domain knowledge is needed if you succeed by the time you're 20. That takes time. But skills can be learned fast, and sometimes a skill such as selling can be little more than a talent. That can be enough to succeed, and someone who is genuinely good at selling can be well worth investing in.

Age is simply not a good metric for choosing who to invest in. It doesn't correlate (or inversely correlate) with any likelihood of success.

Post reply on HN